From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:30:00 +1000
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:17:43PM +1200, Ian McDonald wrote:
> >
> > I'm not saying the check is unneeded - just saying doing it twice is
> > unneeded.
>
> Right, got you this time.
>
> I don't think we need to worry
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:17:43PM +1200, Ian McDonald wrote:
>
> I'm not saying the check is unneeded - just saying doing it twice is
> unneeded.
Right, got you this time.
I don't think we need to worry about people who use __sk_stream_mem_reclaim
when there is a perfectly good sk_stream_mem_re
On 7/12/06, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It looks to me like this check here in net/core/stream.c for
> __sk_stream_mem_reclaim:
>if (sk->sk_forward_alloc >= SK_STREAM_MEM_QUANTUM) {
>
> is unnecessary.
It's needed after skb's have bee
Ian McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It looks to me like this check here in net/core/stream.c for
> __sk_stream_mem_reclaim:
>if (sk->sk_forward_alloc >= SK_STREAM_MEM_QUANTUM) {
>
> is unnecessary.
It's needed after skb's have been freed which can push sk_forward_alloc
above a qu
Folks,
It looks to me like this check here in net/core/stream.c for
__sk_stream_mem_reclaim:
if (sk->sk_forward_alloc >= SK_STREAM_MEM_QUANTUM) {
is unnecessary.
It is also done in include/net/sock.h for sk_stream_mem_reclaim which
if the test succeeds calls __sk_stream_mem_reclaim. Thi
