Hi, On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 11:53:36PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:42:17 +0200 > > > How many people are using DECNET and want to pay the price of this > > 20 bytes dnports structure ? > Point taken :-) Eric, you also need to add a || defined(CONFIG_DECNET_MODULE) I think in your patch, if you want to make this optional.
> I bet you could make that cost get hidden by careful rearrangement > of the struct flow, or adjustment of the implementation. > > BTW, I see assignments to these fields, and as a specific example > uli_u.dnports.objnamel but no use of it. Perhaps much of dnports can > even be deleted outright. :-) > - Its not used at the moment[*], but would be required for any kind of flow tracking. The objnum field, could be folded into the objname field I guess on the basis that objnamel == 0 means objname[0] represents the objnum, but that doesn't really buy much. Looking at the rearrangement option, and the relative lengths of ipv6 and DECnet node addresses, dn_u is a lot smaller than ip6_u and thus the obj[num|name|namel] fields could be moved into that structure. Even after doing this, dn_u would still be shorter than ip6_u, although 12 bytes longer than ip4_u (if my counting is correct). Is that an acceptable solution? [*] By which I mean, as you've already alluded to, that its set up correctly but not currently read/tested by anything yet. Steve. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
