| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Replace scatterlist with crypto_frag |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 4 Jun 2005 12:58:53 +0100 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050604112606.GA1799@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050603234623.GA20088@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050604112314.GA19819@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050604112606.GA1799@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 09:26:06PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 12:23:14PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 09:46:23AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > struct crypto_frag {
> > > struct page *page;
> > > u16 offset;
> > > u16 length;
> > > };
> >
> > we have this structure as skb_frag_struct and bio_vec already, care
> > to use the same structure with a generic name for all of them?
>
> I certainly would have no problems merging with skb_frag_struct.
> However, merging with bio_vec would mean that either bio_vec would
> have to drop down to 16-bit counters, or crypto_frag would have to
> move up to 32-bit counters.
the usage of 16bit counters in bio_vec doesn't make sense, and if did
all others would have to move to 32bit aswell (in case we started
supporting page sizes that aren't addressable by 16bits)
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] Replace scatterlist with crypto_frag, Herbert Xu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Fw: kernel 2.6 libipq kernel hang, Patrick McHardy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Replace scatterlist with crypto_frag, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Replace scatterlist with crypto_frag, Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |