From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:36:30 +0200
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 doesn't make too much sense.
The rtcache will likely be retained as a flow cache lookup
miss handler even once we use the flowcache for all lookups.
Actually, that entire area is in flux, I still do not know the
fate of the rtcache even without the flow cache :)
> How about working on making the xfrm layer more lean instead? :)
My last proposal for this (using hlists in the hash tables) was
rejected, so I don't see much chance to do this.
Because hlists cannot retain the behavior we need, specifically
because we need the ability to add to the tail.
If it's some in-kernel-image table, why not dynamically allocate the
table in question?
|