Hi, On 2016/02/19 21:25, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:29:35PM +0900, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote: >> I agree it should be removed in first place. However, I think there is >> several cases which cannot avoid to use m_tag. So, it may be required >> to rescue such cases. > > We don't have that many random consumers of tags in the tree. For the > hot cases, it makes a lot more sense to put a field or two into the mbuf > packet header -- if more data is needed, a specific pool is needed > anyway.
Sorry about my lack of consideration, I turn down the patch. I will send the ALTQ refactor patch using a specific pool cache later. The m_tag used by ALTQ is struct altq_pktattr which have three field. Thanks, -- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Internet Initiative Japan Inc. Device Engineering Section, Core Product Development Department, Product Division, Technology Unit Kengo NAKAHARA <k-nakah...@iij.ad.jp>
