On Tue, 18 May 2004, Luigi Rizzo wrote: LR>On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 02:00:28PM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote: LR>> On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 09:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote: LR>> > I will try to remove as many assumptions as possible. LR>> > thanks for the feedback. LR>> LR>> I think that in your prototype, the only assumption was in struct LR>> llentry. I would suggest defining it as something like: LR> LR>to be really flexible, both l3_addr and ll_addr should be LR>variable size (v4,v6,v8 over 802.x,firewire,appletalk,snail-mail), LR>then things rapidly become confusing and inefficient. LR>I would like to keep the ipv4 over ethernet case simple and quick, even LR>if this means replicating the code for the generic case (and this LR>is one of the reasons i have stalled a bit on this code -- i want LR>to make up my mind on what is a reasonable approaxch). The most common use of that table is to have an l3_addr and search the ll_addr, right? In that case making ll_addr variable shouldn't have a measurable influence on speed. Variable l3_addr could be different though. hartiReceived on Tue May 18 2004 - 07:21:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:54 UTC