| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This creates struct inet_connection_sock, moving members out of struct
tcp_sock that are shareable with other INET connection oriented
protocols, such as DCCP, that in my private tree already uses most of
these members.
The functions that operate on these members were renamed, using a
inet_csk_ prefix while not being moved yet to a new file, so as to
ease the review of these changes.
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This should really be in a inet_connection_sock, but I'm leaving it
for a later optimization, when some more fields common to INET
transport protocols now in tcp_sk or inet_sk will be chunked out into
inet_connection_sock, for now its better to concentrate on getting the
changes in the core merged to leave the DCCP tree with only DCCP
specific code.
Next changesets will take advantage of this move to generalise things
like tcp_bind_hash, tcp_put_port, tcp_inherit_port, making the later
receive a inet_hashinfo parameter, and even __tcp_tw_hashdance, etc in
the future, when tcp_tw_bucket gets transformed into the struct
timewait_sock hierarchy.
tcp_destroy_sock also is eligible as soon as tcp_orphan_count gets
moved to sk_prot.
A cascade of incremental changes will ultimately make the tcp_lookup
functions be fully generic.
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
From tcp_v4_rebuild_header, that already was pretty generic, I only
needed to use sk->sk_protocol instead of the hardcoded IPPROTO_TCP and
establish the requirement that INET transport layer protocols that
want to use this function map TCP_SYN_SENT to its equivalent state.
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Ok, this one just renames some stuff to have a better namespace and to
dissassociate it from TCP:
struct open_request -> struct request_sock
tcp_openreq_alloc -> reqsk_alloc
tcp_openreq_free -> reqsk_free
tcp_openreq_fastfree -> __reqsk_free
With this most of the infrastructure closely resembles a struct
sock methods subset.
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Kept this first changeset minimal, without changing existing names to
ease peer review.
Basicaly tcp_openreq_alloc now receives the or_calltable, that in turn
has two new members:
->slab, that replaces tcp_openreq_cachep
->obj_size, to inform the size of the openreq descendant for
a specific protocol
The protocol specific fields in struct open_request were moved to a
class hierarchy, with the things that are common to all connection
oriented PF_INET protocols in struct inet_request_sock, the TCP ones
in tcp_request_sock, that is an inet_request_sock, that is an
open_request.
I.e. this uses the same approach used for the struct sock class
hierarchy, with sk_prot indicating if the protocol wants to use the
open_request infrastructure by filling in sk_prot->rsk_prot with an
or_calltable.
Results? Performance is improved and TCP v4 now uses only 64 bytes per
open request minisock, down from 96 without this patch :-)
Next changeset will rename some of the structs, fields and functions
mentioned above, struct or_calltable is way unclear, better name it
struct request_sock_ops, s/struct open_request/struct request_sock/g,
etc.
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
|
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
|
