From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/13] sk_buff: add skb extension infrastructure
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:17:42 -0800
Message-ID: <7906a8d9-c2f9-0883-3d13-5ef38e53f10c@gmail.com>
References: <20181210145006.19098-1-fw@strlen.de>
 <20181210145006.19098-3-fw@strlen.de>
 <4a43ca01-d09b-71e8-18e1-9a5707787ae0@gmail.com>
 <20181212184446.gyjwbwoyzhrk7kxw@breakpoint.cc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com ([209.85.128.65]:54439 "EHLO
        mail-wm1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726294AbeLLURq (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:17:46 -0500
Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id a62so135058wmh.4
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:17:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20181212184446.gyjwbwoyzhrk7kxw@breakpoint.cc>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>



On 12/12/2018 10:44 AM, Florian Westphal wrote:

> We could do that, its probably enough for mptcp needs.
> This would keep nf_bridge and secpath pointers as-is and increase
> skb truesize.
> 
> If you prefer that, ok, but I don't see why we can't unify them behind
> a single layer?
> 

Well, for a start we do not use nf_brifge or secpath.

XDP is all about not unifying because unifying has a cost.

Do we really want to slow down the stack just because MPTCP is coming ?