Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\]\s+cleaning\s+up\s+struct\s+sock\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\]\s+cleaning\s+up\s+struct\s+sock\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:08:10 -0200; This patch cleans up include/net/sock.h, starting to move protocol specific stuff out of this header, with it struct sock protinfo member turns into this: union { void *destruct_hook; struct unix_op; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00040.html (10,776 bytes)
2. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:18:26 -0800 (PST); From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:08:10 -0200 David, if you don't like it, I'll happily switch to the big fat union idea, but I think that this is more; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00043.html (10,327 bytes)
3. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: Steven Whitehouse <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:14:39 +0000 (GMT); We do have to allocate an inode as well though (at least in the normal case) and with the new (if I've understood the conclusions of the discussions on inode allocation) scheme this would give us a; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00045.html (11,971 bytes)
4. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:47:55 -0800 (PST); We do have to allocate an inode as well though (at least in the normal case) and with the new (if I've understood the conclusions of the discussions on inode allocation) scheme this would give us a s; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00046.html (10,455 bytes)
5. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:52:19 -0200; Em Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:18:26PM -0800, David S. Miller escreveu: If that is the case then we could keep some of the performance critical protocols in the union and leave the other ones, that alrea; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00047.html (13,079 bytes)
6. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:55:43 -0200; Em Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:52:19AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: ^ would above I mean: (without the "not") "That was one of the reasons for me to have left af_inet with the" sorry...; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00048.html (10,873 bytes)
7. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:19:51 +0300 (MSK); (A bit out of topic) The last is just absent now, by the way. The information inlined into private part of inode is wrong anyway and causes lots of troubles, starting from problems with async signal; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00051.html (9,670 bytes)
8. [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:08:10 -0200; Hi, This patch cleans up include/net/sock.h, starting to move protocol specific stuff out of this header, with it struct sock protinfo member turns into this: union { void *destruct_hook; struct unix; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00137.html (10,791 bytes)
9. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:18:26 -0800 (PST); From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:08:10 -0200 David, if you don't like it, I'll happily switch to the big fat union idea, but I think that this is more; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00140.html (10,381 bytes)
10. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: Steven Whitehouse <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:14:39 +0000 (GMT); Hi, We do have to allocate an inode as well though (at least in the normal case) and with the new (if I've understood the conclusions of the discussions on inode allocation) scheme this would give us; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00142.html (12,009 bytes)
11. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:47:55 -0800 (PST); We do have to allocate an inode as well though (at least in the normal case) and with the new (if I've understood the conclusions of the discussions on inode allocation) scheme this would give us a s; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00143.html (10,551 bytes)
12. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:52:19 -0200; Em Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:18:26PM -0800, David S. Miller escreveu: If that is the case then we could keep some of the performance critical protocols in the union and leave the other ones, that alrea; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00144.html (13,182 bytes)
13. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:55:43 -0200; Em Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 09:52:19AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: ^ would above I mean: (without the "not") "That was one of the reasons for me to have left af_inet with the" sorry...; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00145.html (10,994 bytes)
14. Re: [RFC] cleaning up struct sock (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:19:51 +0300 (MSK); Hello! (A bit out of topic) The last is just absent now, by the way. The information inlined into private part of inode is wrong anyway and causes lots of troubles, starting from problems with async; /archives/netdev/2001-12/msg00148.html (9,708 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]