On 08/26/2015 04:37 AM, David Miller wrote:
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:24:24 +0530
Please let me know if you have suggestions/comments.
Like Eric Dumazet said the idea is good but needs some adjustments.
You might want to see whether a per-cpu work buffer works for this.
sure, Let me know if I understood correctly,
we allocate the temp buffer,
we will have a "add_this_cpu_data" function and do
for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
smp_call_function_single(cpu, add_this_cpu_data, buffer, 1)
if not could you please point to an example you had in mind.
It's extremely unfortunately that we can't depend upon the destination
buffer being properly aligned, because we wouldn't need a temporary
scratch area if it were aligned properly.
True, But I think for 64 bit cpus when (pad == 0) we can go ahead and
use stats array directly and get rid of put_unaligned(). is it correct?
(my internal initial patch had this version but thought it is ugly to
have ifdef BITS_PER_LONG==64)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
