Eliminate unused argument from sk_stream_alloc_pskb
Subsystems (4)
PATCH 2/2 Eliminate unused argument from sk_stream_alloc_pskb
The 3rd argument is always zero (according to grep :) Eliminate it and merge the function with sk_stream_alloc_skb.
This saves 44 more bytes, and together with the previous patch we have:
add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 0/8 up/down: 183/-751 (-568)
function old new delta sk_stream_alloc_skb - 183 +183 ip_rt_init 529 525 -4 arp_ignore 112 107 -5 __inet_lookup_listener 284 274 -10 tcp_sendmsg 2583 2481 -102 tcp_sendpage 1449 1300 -149 tso_fragment 417 258 -159 tcp_fragment 1149 988 -161 __tcp_push_pending_frames 1998 1837 -161
Question: is this 2.6.24 material (good space saving) or should I rework this against 2.6.25 (it applies with fuzzes, but seems to compile)?
---
include/net/sock.h +1 -9
@@ -1230,15 +1230,7 @@ static inline void sk_stream_moderate_sndbuf(struct sock *sk) } } -struct sk_buff *sk_stream_alloc_pskb (struct sock *sk, -int size,int mem,gfp_t gfp); - -static inline struct sk_buff *sk_stream_alloc_skb (struct sock *sk, -int size, -gfp_t gfp) -{ -return sk_stream_alloc_pskb (sk, size,0 , gfp); -} +struct sk_buff *sk_stream_alloc_skb (struct sock *sk,int size,gfp_t gfp);static inline struct page *sk_stream_alloc_page (struct sock *sk) {
net/ipv4/tcp.c +4 -7
@@ -501,8 +501,7 @@ static inline void tcp_push(struct sock *sk, int flags, int mss_now, } } -struct sk_buff *sk_stream_alloc_pskb (struct sock *sk, -int size,int mem,gfp_t gfp) +struct sk_buff *sk_stream_alloc_skb (struct sock *sk,int size,gfp_t gfp) {struct sk_buff *skb;
@@ -511,7 +510,6 @@ struct sk_buff *sk_stream_alloc_pskb(struct sock *sk, skb =alloc_skb_fclone (size + sk->sk_prot->max_header, gfp);if (skb) { - skb->truesize += mem;if (sk_stream_wmem_schedule (sk, skb->truesize)) {/* * Make sure that we have exactly size bytes
@@ -564,8 +562,7 @@ new_segment:if (!sk_stream_memory_free (sk)) goto wait_for_sndbuf; - skb =sk_stream_alloc_pskb (sk,0 ,0 , - sk->sk_allocation); + skb =sk_stream_alloc_skb (sk,0 , sk->sk_allocation);if (!skb) goto wait_for_memory;
@@ -745,8 +742,8 @@ new_segment:if (!sk_stream_memory_free (sk)) goto wait_for_sndbuf; - skb =sk_stream_alloc_pskb (sk,select_size (sk), -0 , sk->sk_allocation); + skb =sk_stream_alloc_skb (sk,select_size (sk), + sk->sk_allocation);if (!skb) goto wait_for_memory;
net/ipv4/tcp_output.c +1 -1
@@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ static int tso_fragment(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, unsigned int len,if (skb->len != skb->data_len)return tcp_fragment (sk, skb, len, mss_now); - buff =sk_stream_alloc_pskb (sk,0 ,0 ,GFP_ATOMIC ); + buff =sk_stream_alloc_skb (sk,0 ,GFP_ATOMIC );if (unlikely (buff ==NULL ))return -ENOMEM ;
Signature · 1 line
1.5.3.4
Quoted 7 lines · Pavel Emelyanov
The 3rd argument is always zero (according to grep :) Eliminate it and merge the function with
sk_stream_alloc_skb.This saves 44 more bytes, and together with the previous patch we have:
add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 0/8 up/down: 183/-751 (-568)
Quoted 10 lines
function old new delta sk_stream_alloc_skb - 183 +183 ip_rt_init 529 525 -4 arp_ignore 112 107 -5 __inet_lookup_listener 284 274 -10 tcp_sendmsg 2583 2481 -102 tcp_sendpage 1449 1300 -149 tso_fragment 417 258 -159 tcp_fragment 1149 988 -161 __tcp_push_pending_frames 1998 1837 -161
Also applied to net-2.6.25. Thanks.
Quoted 3 lines
Question: is this 2.6.24 material (good space saving) or should I rework this against 2.6.25 (it applies with fuzzes, but seems to compile)?
I guess I've answered this question :)
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt