On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:41:41 +0200
Dominik Karall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday, 24. June 2006 15:19, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.1
> >7/2.6.17-mm2/
>
> hi!
>
> I get this warning on make modules_install:
>
> WARNING: /li
On Fri, 2006-23-06 at 16:32 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> > If you do it in user space you will need a daemon of some form; this is
> > my preference but it seems a lot of people hate daemons - the standard
> > claim is it is counter-usability. Such people are forgiving if you bui
On Fri, 2006-23-06 at 08:24 -0500, Steve Wise wrote:
>
> > PS:- I do think what they need is to hear route cache generation
> > as opposed to ARP+FIB updates; but lets wait and see how clever
> > the patches would look.
> >
> Can you expand on your statement above? If hooking route cache
> ge
On Fri, 2006-23-06 at 22:37 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
> Sorry for the digest like reply :(
;-> I know this discussion has gone in a few directions already
and i am sure as you kept responding to the emails it became obvious.
Let me just jump to one point so we dont repeat a lot of the same th
On Fri, 2006-23-06 at 13:35 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 08:52:17PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> >
> > It does feel like the qdisc_is_running though is now a replacement
> > for the need for dev->txlock which existed to protect multi-cpus from
> > entering the device transmit path.
This is a corrected version of the patch. I also updated the 'devel' branch
of my tree.
---
Arrived packets should not go into master interface except when scanning
- it leads to duplicate packets reception. This also fixes a race when
scanning is finished during invoking of rx handlers.
Signed-
Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:12:15 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> John, please apply.
Please do not apply the whole series yet, it is experimental and not well
tested (I wrote it in the introduction e-mail but will ensure I put it also
in subjects next time).
For example, I just realized that the first pa
Hi,
According to numbers: kevent compared to epoll resulted in the
folllowing numbers:
kevent: more than 2600 requests per second (trivial web server)
epoll: about 1600-1800 requests.
Number of errors for 3k bursts of connections with 30K connections total
in 10seconds:
kevent: about 2k errors.
