On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:29:17 +0100 Robert Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| | Luiz Fernando Capitulino writes: | | > Well, I wouldn't say it's _really_ needed. But it really avoids having | > too many thread entries in the pktgen's /proc directory, and as a good | > result, you will not have pending threads which will never run as well. | > | > Also note that the patch is trivial, if you look at it in detail, | > you'll see that the biggest change we have is the 'if' part. The rest I | > would call cosmetic because the behaivor is the same. | > | > | If so -- Wouldn't a concept of a bitmask to control also which CPU's | > | that runs the threads be more general? | > | > Sounds like a bit complex, and would be my turn to ask if it's | > really needed. :) | | A bit set for each CPU there will a pktgen process running. Looks interesting. Could you give a few more details? Or an example somewhere in the kernel (if any) for what you have in mind. | > * Some minor fixes and cleanups, like functions returns being not | > checked. | > | > * A new command called 'rem_device' to remove one device at a time | > (currently, we can only remove all devices in one shoot with | > 'rem_devices_all') | > | > * Ports pktgen to use the kernel thread API | | The current model was chosen simplicity and to bound a device | to a specific CPU so it never cahanges. A change will need to | carefully tested. Sure thing. | > * cleanup the debug function usage | | I would like to remove the do_softirq stuff from pktgen... Added to the TODO list. :) -- Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
