Re: fragments sent in reverse order

From: Stephen Satchell (satch@concentric.net)
Date: Sun Jan 16 2000 - 01:12:59 EST


At 08:10 AM 1/15/00 , Khimenko Victor wrote:
>IMO it's bad change. Since it will make situation slighly better in uncommon
>case while slowing down common case. Since it's legal to send orphan fragments
>out on the net (IP is NOT reliable anyway) it looks REALLY wrong.

Actually, it doesn't change anything in the common case, except that ALL
fragments would be sent out in reverse order. I've not taken a close look
at the IP code in 2.3.39 yet, but what I saw in 2.0.34 would REMOVE code
because of the duplication of effort and REMOVE CPU cycles because it's far
easier to debug and optimize one implementation than three.

I'm also not talking about adding a memcopy operation, either.

Perhaps this discussion should wait until I've had a chance to put together
my change and submit it to the group for consideration.

Satch

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:13 EST