Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:13:50 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.17-mm6 |
| |
* Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> I wrote: > > (Ieee1394 core's usage of the skb_* API is entirely unrelated to > > networking; even if eth1394 was used.) > > PS: > I wonder if it wouldn't be better to migrate ieee1394 core away from > skb_*. I didn't look thoroughly at it yet but the benefit of using > this API appears quite low to me.
yeah, it seems to be the wrong abstraction to use. It's also more expensive than necessary: e.g. skb-heads have a qlen field that is maintained in every list op - but the ieee1394 code does not make use of the queue-length information. Using list.h plus a spinlock should do the trick?
Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |