From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/13] sk_buff: add extension infrastructure
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 11:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20181219.110222.2160722788800016798.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20181218161527.2760-1-fw@strlen.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: fw@strlen.de
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.9]:35466 "EHLO
        shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1727982AbeLSTCY (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:02:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20181218161527.2760-1-fw@strlen.de>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:15:14 +0100

> TL;DR:
>  - objdiff shows no change if CONFIG_XFRM=n && BR_NETFILTER=n
>  - small size reduction when one or both options are set
>  - no changes in ipsec performance
> 
>  Changes since v1:
>  - Allocate entire extension space from a kmem_cache.
>  - Avoid atomic_dec_and_test operation on skb_ext_put() for refcnt == 1 case.
>    (similar to kfree_skbmem() fclone_ref use).
> 
> This adds an optional extension infrastructure, with ispec (xfrm) and
> bridge netfilter as first users.
 ...

Hey Florian, I just wanted to let you know that I'm actively reviewing this.

I have no major issues with the approach, but I just want to understand all
of the details before I apply this.

And honestly, if this turns out to be the wrong direction we can
revert and try doing this another way.

Anyways, just FYI...