Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Make\s+xfrm\s+subsystem\s+optional\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:16:31 +0200
nsen. =) -- wli
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg00435.html (27,170 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: d@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
all ~72K memory
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg00436.html (8,628 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:36:30 +0200
ean instead? :)
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg00437.html (9,530 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: iller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
pefully discard
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg00438.html (9,383 bytes)

5. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:18:51 +0200
en not needed d
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg00439.html (10,471 bytes)

6. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 04:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
acy (would need
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg00440.html (8,915 bytes)

7. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: xxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:32:32 +0200
not do this, bu
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg00442.html (9,304 bytes)

8. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: eg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
cription attemp
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg00446.html (9,366 bytes)

9. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:08:24 +0200
ne place for Gr
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg00453.html (10,518 bytes)

10. [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:16:31 +0200
This patches only compiles the xfrm subsystem in when any of the options using it are selected. This shrinks the text segment on an amd64 kernel by ~32k, data by ~6k, bss by ~33k, overall ~72K memory
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01334.html (27,170 bytes)

11. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
I'm not going to apply this, sorry Andi. I want the freedom to use the XFRM layer for generic things at some point. How about working on making the xfrm layer more lean instead? :)
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01335.html (8,688 bytes)

12. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:36:30 +0200
But in 2.7 surely right? When what happens you can easily make CONFIG_XFRM the default. This would give the 2.6 users an useful option. Also when you do use it generically you will hopefully discard
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01336.html (9,636 bytes)

13. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Also when you do use it generically you will hopefully discard some old code (like the rt cache?) which may make up for the additional bloat. But until that happens having both even when not needed d
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01337.html (9,511 bytes)

14. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:18:51 +0200
In that case you could really apply the patch. It doesn't close any future options for you, just makes live a bit better for some users today. Allocating it at first lookup would be racy (would need
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01338.html (10,645 bytes)

15. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 04:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:18:51 +0200 Allocating it at first lookup would be racy (would need a nasty spinlock at least). It may be possible at first policy setup, but i
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01339.html (9,043 bytes)

16. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:32:32 +0200
Did you actually read what I wrote? Allocating on init is useless from the bloat perspective because it's 100% equivalent to an BSS allocation. -Andi
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01341.html (9,478 bytes)

17. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Did you actually read what I wrote? Allocating on init is useless from the bloat perspective because it's 100% equivalent to an BSS allocation. If dynamic, you could allocate a "tiny" hash table or
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01345.html (9,494 bytes)

18. Re: [PATCH] Make xfrm subsystem optional (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:08:24 +0200
I suspect dynamic growing at runtime would result in interesting SMP locking issues (suspect - i haven't studied the xfrm locking in detail yet) Also it has the same problem - 32K direct mapping allo
/archives/netdev/2003-06/msg01352.html (10,692 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu