[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:55:43 -0200
Cc: SteveW@xxxxxxx, jschlst@xxxxxxxxx, ncorbic@xxxxxxxxxxx, eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dag@xxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, marcelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20011211095219.B1630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20011210230810.C896@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20011210.231826.55509210.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20011211095219.B1630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
Em Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:52:19AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> If that is the case then we could keep some of the performance critical
> protocols in the union and leave the other ones, that already were
> allocating two objects, using the sk->protinfo.generic (aka destruct_hook),
> but there are other possibilities, like you mention.
> Ok, the goal of not having anything specific to a protocol in sock.h would
> not be achieved, but things more cleaner than today.

> That was one of the reasons for me not to have left af_inet with the

above I mean: (without the "not")

 "That was one of the reasons for me to have left af_inet with the"
> #ifdefs in protinfo in this patch (i.e. for performance critical, most of
> the time enabled anyway protocols, leave it as is in protinfo).


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>