Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> A lot of device drivers do msgdsize. Some (neptune, I'm looking at
> you!) call it *a lot* (repeatedly) on the same packet.
I don't understand how the fact that a driver is suboptimal means that
we need to add some more complexity to the stack.
I would seem better to fix the driver.
> It would be very, very handy to have to full packet (maybe I mean
> ethernet frame here) length pre-calculated.
But it wouldn't come for free. As Darren pointed out, we'd have to
update things in two places when changing the length of a packet. And
such duplication is rife with problems - a bug where some code forgets
to update both of them would be hard to track down.
Complexity is the enemy. Performance is easier to deal with than complexity.
Erik
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
