[3841] in linux-net channel archive
Re: route broken in 2.0.7
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (really kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru)
Thu Jul 25 02:41:15 1996
From: inr-linux-net@ms2.inr.ac.ru (really kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru)
To: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
Date: 24 Jul 1996 17:47:12 +0400
Bernd Eckenfels (ecki@inka.DE) wrote:
: really kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru <inr-linux-net@ms2.inr.ac.ru> wrote:
: : Total usage count is not accounted anywhere now.
: Honestly I think those numbers are realy good for nothing. They only help
: you to debug the Caching code, but users would like to see the real usage of
: a route. What do u think? Perhaps both numbers?
Is it necessary? I believed firewall code is more useful for accounting.
Well, if it is really desired, I could make it.
But remember, this feature will eat CPU nanoseconds and memory.
To be honest, I planned to remove this usage count at all,
and just forgot to make it 8)
If you look at fib_node structure, it takes exactly 1 paragraph
when usage count is excluded. (Great win for BGP4 router.)
Alexey Kuznetsov.
