| To: | Dan Siemon <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput |
| From: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:15:54 +0100 |
| Cc: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1109108440.5712.17.camel@ganymede> |
| References: | <1106747313.1107.7.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1108134446.5523.22.camel@ganymede> <1108215923.1126.132.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1108246033.7554.18.camel@ganymede> <20050212223204.GG31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1108340618.14978.66.camel@ganymede> <20050214142710.GI31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1108499294.5465.22.camel@ganymede> <20050215204723.GM31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1109108440.5712.17.camel@ganymede> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> > The NLHDR_COMMON must stay first, the ordering of the others doesn't > > matter. > > That could be a problem. The GObject struct must be at the start so > that all sub-classes can be operated on with the g_object_ functions. > The only way to make these objects work with your caching scheme would > be to make a sub-class of GObject with the caching information. This > would have the benefit of adding ref counting etc. It's not a problem, as you note we can put the gobject information into NLHDR_COMMON. I'm not focusing on such bindings but if you want to reuse my code, feel free. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [RFT] BIC TCP delayed ack compensation, Stephen Hemminger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Intel and TOE in the news, Leonid Grossman |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput, Dan Siemon |
| Next by Thread: | IP More Fragements bit problem., Vincent Roqueta |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |