On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 11:03:19PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> > A couple of comments:
> >
> > - You can always cache the pcb the first time it's used, and then have it
> > available for future use. I agree with your concerns about generating
> >
If you want code, go out to the DDJ archive on UUNET; it has
all the source code from the DDJ article from 1996 or so...
-- Terry
Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > Do a web search. It's basically a way to have a linked list that
> > you can do nearly
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Do a web search. It's basically a way to have a linked list that
> you can do nearly a binary search on, however it costs several
> additional linkages. It was also the "pool on the roof" trick
> we'd do to the new guy at clickarray.
Hm, did you g
* Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020307 22:35] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > * Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020307 22:24] wrote:
> > >
> > > If it were just the pcbhash, I think I'd go with a btree...
> > > or to make Alfred happy... a skiplist... ;^).
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020307 22:24] wrote:
> >
> > If it were just the pcbhash, I think I'd go with a btree...
> > or to make Alfred happy... a skiplist... ;^).
>
> Argh, someone hand me the firehose, Terry seems really thirsty...
>
>
* Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020307 22:24] wrote:
>
> If it were just the pcbhash, I think I'd go with a btree...
> or to make Alfred happy... a skiplist... ;^).
Argh, someone hand me the firehose, Terry seems really thirsty...
--
-Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
To Unsubscribe:
Bill Fumerola wrote:
> i think that ip_fw_chk() taking _8_ arguments is getting a bit obscene.
ip_fw_chk should be obscene and not heard? 8-).
> we're talking about an optimization that less then .1% of our userbase
> will ever take advantage of v. a pessimization (additional argument in
> the
Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 03:51:41AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > what would be even nicer is if ipfw found the cached entry and passed it
> > back to ip_input so it didn't need to :-)
>
> i think this entire idea of cacheing it in ip_input() is a bad idea, no
> offense
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 11:03:19PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> A couple of comments:
>
> - You can always cache the pcb the first time it's used, and then have it
> available for future use. I agree with your concerns about generating
> it every time -- that would be a disaster for routers
A couple of comments:
- You can always cache the pcb the first time it's used, and then have it
available for future use. I agree with your concerns about generating
it every time -- that would be a disaster for routers where no packets
are even delivered locally. :-)
- The uid/gid code
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 03:51:41AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> what would be even nicer is if ipfw found the cached entry and passed it
> back to ip_input so it didn't need to :-)
i think this entire idea of cacheing it in ip_input() is a bad idea, no
offense terry.
first, having a uid or g
Julian Elischer wrote:
> what would be even nicer is if ipfw found the cached entry and passed it
> back to ip_input so it didn't need to :-)
This is the approach I intended.
The problem is that there are cases where you want the inpcb
for additional processing (e.g. ipfw), and cases where ther
what would be even nicer is if ipfw found the cached entry and passed it
back to ip_input so it didn't need to :-)
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 05:07:55PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > There are redundant calls to the in_pcblookup_hash() in the
> > ip_
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 05:07:55PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> There are redundant calls to the in_pcblookup_hash() in the
> ip_fw_chk() function called via (*ip_fw_chk_ptr)() in the
> ip_input path.
in addition to what you're talking about, ipfw will repeat the hash
lookup for every rule it g
sounds good..
can you send us a patch to look at?
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> There are redundant calls to the in_pcblookup_hash() in the
> ip_fw_chk() function called via (*ip_fw_chk_ptr)() in the
> ip_input path.
>
> Would it be useful to modify the (*pr_input) function point
There are redundant calls to the in_pcblookup_hash() in the
ip_fw_chk() function called via (*ip_fw_chk_ptr)() in the
ip_input path.
Would it be useful to modify the (*pr_input) function pointer
in the struct ipprotosw to take a fourth argument (perhaps it
should be cast to a "void *" to keep it
16 matches
Mail list logo
