On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 11:08:35AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> BSDs were sometimes recommended for specific jobs like mail etc.
> but usually linux better fitted the needs. Especially well linux
> appeared for an internet gateway/router/firewall/antispam thing,
> and the main reasons were:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:28:47PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi, Jarek.
>
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list
> > of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean thei
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 03:06:40PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list
> > of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean their
> > private allocations. Woudn't this save
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 03:06:40PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list
> > of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean their
> > private allocations. Woudn't this save
> The destructor method is set and used for skbs originating from the RDMA
> driver sitting above cxgb3.
If these skbs never reach the normal sockets based stack it might be ok.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list
> of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean their
> private allocations. Woudn't this save some skb clonning,
> copying or adding new fields for private infos?
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:28:47PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi, Jarek.
>
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list
> > of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean thei
Hi, Jarek.
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list
> of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean their
> private allocations. Woudn't this save some skb clonning,
> copying or add
On 05-07-2007 12:08, Andi Kleen wrote:
...
> The traditional standpoint was that having your own large skb pools
> is not recommended because you won't interact well with the
> rest of the system running low on memory and you tieing up
> memory.
>
> Essentially you would recreate all the proble
Andi Kleen wrote:
Brice Goglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am trying to understand whether I can setup a skb destructor in my
code (which is basically a protocol above dev_queue_xmit() and co). From
what I see in many parts in the current kernel code, the "protocol" (I
mean, the one who ac
Brice Goglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am trying to understand whether I can setup a skb destructor in my
> code (which is basically a protocol above dev_queue_xmit() and co). From
> what I see in many parts in the current kernel code, the "protocol" (I
> mean, the one who actually creates t
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 10:04:54AM +0200, Brice Goglin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> So, I'd like to have a clear statement about who's allowed to use a
> destructor :)
That one who allocates skb - if it is socket layer, it sets own
socket destructor, netlink has own too and so on.
> Thanks,
> Br
Hi,
I am trying to understand whether I can setup a skb destructor in my
code (which is basically a protocol above dev_queue_xmit() and co). From
what I see in many parts in the current kernel code, the "protocol" (I
mean, the one who actually creates the skb) may setup a destructor.
However, I a
13 matches
Mail list logo
