Dnia Monday 21 of April 2008, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo napisał: > Em Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 01:45:20PM +0200, Patrick McHardy escreveu: > > Tomasz Grobelny wrote: > >> 2. If the sole purpose of this change was to keep skb->cb zeroed then it > >> doesn't seem to me like the right solution. Wasting about 20 bytes > >> instead of zeroing them when needed I would consider at least weird. I > >> understand that TCP and UDP may have enough space left but it just > >> turned out that DCCP doesn't. > > > > It was the safest solution that late in a release. It also > > avoids to memset the cb unnecessarily. If the room is not > > enough anymore, its easy to go back to using memset. > > Nod, if we don't need the space reserved for the lower layer protocols > in DCCP it is actually the best solution, as we don't need to zero the > cb again before passing it to IP, it gets zeroed at alloc_skb time and > that is it. If we need the space, we have to pay the price of > memset before passing to IP. > Ok, so in this case the patch for DCCP could be reverted in test tree, is that right? Were these two deleted memsets zeroing all that was necessary or were there any other bugs fixed by the patch? If we iron this out we could finally return to the main subject of this thread. That is Patch v2 by me and Gerrit... -- Regards, Tomasz Grobelny -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
