While hunting down oversized inlines
I stumbled on tcf_generic_walker().
It is defined in two separate files:
once as an inline in include/net/pkt_act.h
(really big one, ~750 bytes of code)
and once as a static function in net/sched/act_police.c
These two instances are not identical.
Second one
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
While hunting down oversized inlines
I stumbled on tcf_generic_walker().
It is defined in two separate files:
once as an inline in include/net/pkt_act.h
(really big one, ~750 bytes of code)
and once as a static function in net/sched/act_police.c
These two instances
Removed lkml from the CC.
On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 10:50 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
While hunting down oversized inlines
I stumbled on tcf_generic_walker().
It is defined in two separate files:
once as an inline in include/net/pkt_act.h
(really big one, ~750
jamal wrote:
What needs to be done is to put a pointer to the hash, its size
and its lock in struct tc_action_ops and move the generic
functions to a seperate .c file and make them work on a struct
tcf_act_common.
This is much better than your old proposal Patrick and i have no
problem with
On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 16:19 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
jamal wrote:
This is much better than your old proposal Patrick and i have no
problem with it. Why you would need tcf_act_common
if you are going to have those elements in tc_action_ops?
So go ahead and submit the patches or you
jamal wrote:
It is actually exactly what I've always proposed. tcf_act_common
is the single action itself, tc_action_ops only includes pointers
to the hash table and the private lock.
I may have misunderstood you then or misunderstand you now. Let me be
explicit:
I like augmentation (which
On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 17:20 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
You must have misunderstood my the first time, the first variant
is what I've always proposed. tc_act_common is an abstraction for
the _members_ of the hash, the actions.
But you are still confusing me Patrick, otherwise i would agree
jamal wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 17:20 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
You must have misunderstood my the first time, the first variant
is what I've always proposed. tc_act_common is an abstraction for
the _members_ of the hash, the actions.
But you are still confusing me Patrick,
Patrick McHardy wrote:
jamal wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 17:20 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
You must have misunderstood my the first time, the first variant
is what I've always proposed. tc_act_common is an abstraction for
the _members_ of the hash, the actions.
But you are still
On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 17:26 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
jamal wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 17:20 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
You must have misunderstood my the first time, the first variant
is what I've always proposed. tc_act_common is an abstraction for
jamal wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 17:26 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
To be explicit: the hash pointer, the
size and the lock will be contained in tc_act_ops. The actions itself
(tc_act_common) of course not, that wouldn't make any sense.
Ok, go nuts then; i will volunteer to test if you
On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 17:35 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
jamal wrote:
Well, I was hopeing someone else would do it, I already have lots of
TODOs on my list. One low priority item is this however, so if
noone else cares, I might do it anyway.
I could do it - it wont be in the next few days;
jamal wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-04 at 17:35 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
jamal wrote:
Well, I was hopeing someone else would do it, I already have lots of
TODOs on my list. One low priority item is this however, so if
noone else cares, I might do it anyway.
I could do it - it wont be in the
13 matches
Mail list logo
