On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> This is what I did in the follow up patch. I attach the updated version >>>>> in this email for you to review ... >>>> >>>> I think there is still some confusion. The second patch you posted >>>> still has two queues with potentially duplicated (minus the length >>>> tweaks) skbs. >>> >>> The current code without my patch is already this, the only difference >>> is there is no queue for multicast case, duplication is already there. >> >> The difference is the period of time where the skbs are duplicated. >> You patch duplicates the skb and then queues them, I'm suggesting >> putting a single skb in the queue and then only duplicating it once it >> has been pulled off the queue. > > I never disagree, the only thing you never explain is why we must do > it in this patch rather than a patch later?
It seems obvious: if you do the skb_copy() before you queue the skbs you are doubling the amount of memory used which is undesirable. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
