From: Shirley Ma <redacted>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:51:32 -0700

On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 15:54 -0700, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Shirley Ma <redacted>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:45:10 -0700

quoted

To support skb zero-copy, a pointer is needed to add to skb share

info.

quoted

Do you agree with this approach? If not, do you have any other
suggestions?

I really can't form an opinion unless I am shown the complete
implementation, what this give us in return, what the impact is, etc. 

 ..

You can see the overall CPU saved 50% w/i zero-copy.

The impact is every skb allocation consumed one more pointer in skb
share info, and a pointer check in skb release when last reference is
gone.

For skb clone, skb expand private head and skb copy, it still keeps copy
the buffers to kernel, so we can avoid user application, like tcpdump to
hold the user-space buffers too long.

Ok, now show me the "complete implementation".  I'm as interested in
the code as I am in the numbers, that's why I asked for both.