On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 15:22 -0700, David Miller wrote: > The driver path, however, does not exist on an island and what > we care about is the final result with the changes running > inside the full system. > > So, to be honest, besides for initial internal development > feedback, the isolated tests only have minimal merit and > it's the full protocol tests that are really interesting.
But you cant go there if cant show the path which is supposedly improved has indeed improved;-> I would certainly agree with you that if it doesnt prove consistently useful with protocols it has no value (remember thats why i never submitted these patches all this time). We just need better analysis of the results - i cant ignore that the selection of the clock sources for example gives me different results and that when i boot i cant be guaranteed the same clock source. I cant ignore the fact that i get different results when i use a different congestion control algorithm. And none of this has to do with the batching patches. I am using UDP at the moment because it is simpler to analyze. And yes, it would be "an interesting idea that gets shelved" if we cant achieve any of the expected goals. We've shelved ideas before. BTW, read the little doc i wrote on the dev->prep_xmit() you may find it interesting. cheers, jamal - 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
