Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1510239528.2849.126.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
References: <1510237564-6013-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
 <1510237564-6013-2-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <1510239161.2849.123.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <1510239528.2849.126.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 23:11:10 +0800
Message-ID: <CALOAHbDN1X3pha81LaWENWVjj6JfyB07rVsEcw3tpktvGJAgag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] tcp: handle TCP_TIME_WAIT/TCP_NEW_SYN_RECV
 in tcp_set_state tracepoint
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2017-11-09 22:58 GMT+08:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 06:52 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> Wow.
>>
>>
>> Since all three variants of sockets (full sockets, request sockets,
>> timewait sockets) are all hashed into ehash table these days, they all
>> have the fields at the same offset
>>
>> For IPv4, that would be :
>>
>> __sk_common.skc_daddr    (or inet_daddr)
>> __sk_common.skc_rcv_saddr (or inet_rcv_saddr )
>> __sk_common.skc_dport     (or inet_dport)
>> __sk_common.skc_num       (or inet_num)
>>
>> Look at __inet_lookup_established() and INET_MATCH() : They deal with
>> the three variants, without having to look at sk_state.
>>
>> If you were using the fields that are common to all sockets, no need to
>> add all this unnecessary complexity.
>>
>
> Not to mention that your patch took care of IPv4 only.
>
> I can not say how sad I am that in 2017 IPv6 seems to be second class
> citizen.
>

I'm also very sad that I'm still using IPv4 in 2017 : (

Okay then another issue,
shoule we reduce the complexity in  the function tcp4_seq_show() ?

Thanks
Yafang

From 1583601040178704887@xxx Thu Nov 09 15:00:39 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583598964747630187
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread