OSPF performance/SPF calculations

[Ondrej Zajicek]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 01:06:20PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > I must be missing something then(not surprising as I just started looking
> > at BIRD). Why do you need the separate allocation for the body of the LSA then?
> > Why not just adding entries to the allocated LSA header?
> 
> Ahh, I am starting to get a clue I think. It is the struct top_hash_entry
> that has this separation of LSA header and body.
> Would it be feasible to move struct ospf_lsa_header lsa into
> void *lsa_body, that is, merge them into one so
> there is just one struct ospf_lsa_header *lsa instead?

Yes, LSA header and LSA body are separated and i am not sure what is a
purpose of that separation, but it does not cause much problems, so it
is probably pointless to change this. It probably makes slightly faster
access to the header fields.

-- 
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: santiago at crfreenet.org)
OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net)
"To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/attachments/20100423/b51dd189/attachment-0001.asc>