Lots of other things would have to change when that happens too. Until then
I'll take any latency improvement I can get.
On 24 Jan 2015 12:40 am, "Mark Kettenis" wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:52:37 +1000
> > From: David Gwynne
> >
> > when a softint gets scheduled, we set a bit in the cur
Is everything right with my regression test?
2015-01-21 15:28 GMT+01:00, Simon Mages :
> btw. here is my regression test for bpf:
>
> Index: regress/sys/net/Makefile
> ===
> RCS file: /home/cvs/src/regress/sys/net/Makefile,v
> retriev
On 2015/01/23 21:40, Simon Nicolussi wrote:
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2015/01/23 16:50, Jim Smith wrote:
> > > doesn't look like the 80 column rule is mentioned in
> > > style(9). this diff puts the sentence around the same place
> > > as osx's style(9) as it was the only example i could fin
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/01/23 16:50, Jim Smith wrote:
> > doesn't look like the 80 column rule is mentioned in
> > style(9). this diff puts the sentence around the same place
> > as osx's style(9) as it was the only example i could find
> > and it seems like a reasonable place.
>
> oh, i
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
I am a fan of code unification.
> simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
> is going away.
When we notify the userland about
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
> simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
> is going away.
>
> Comments, ok?
I think this version of the diff is correct. If
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:22:47PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> It is indeed confusing. I tried to check every cases but in the end I
> think that it might be better to decouple the removal from the routing
> table and the rtfree(). Updated diff below does that.
I think the code is not eqiva
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:45:02 -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 20:16, Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> > This diff is mechanical in nature. Later I will fix the bugs it reveals:
> >
> > - while ((status = load_env(envstr, file)) >= OK) {
> > + while ((status = load_env(envstr
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:52:37 +1000
> From: David Gwynne
>
> when a softint gets scheduled, we set a bit in the current cpus
> cpu_info structure. that doesnt have to be an interlocked operation
> to be locally atomic.
>
> ok?
Hmm, but it will need to be if we ever want to have the ability
softints and interlocking, sorry.
> On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:52 pm, David Gwynne wrote:
>
> when a softint gets scheduled, we set a bit in the current cpus
> cpu_info structure. that doesnt have to be an interlocked operation
> to be locally atomic.
>
> ok?
>
> Index: arch/amd64/amd64/intr.c
> ==
when a softint gets scheduled, we set a bit in the current cpus
cpu_info structure. that doesnt have to be an interlocked operation
to be locally atomic.
ok?
Index: arch/amd64/amd64/intr.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/amd64/amd64/
> On 23 Jan 2015, at 9:37 pm, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> On 2015/01/23 16:50, Jim Smith wrote:
>> doesn't look like the 80 column rule is mentioned in
>> style(9). this diff puts the sentence around the same place
>> as osx's style(9) as it was the only example i could find
>> and it seems like
On 2015/01/23 16:50, Jim Smith wrote:
> doesn't look like the 80 column rule is mentioned in
> style(9). this diff puts the sentence around the same place
> as osx's style(9) as it was the only example i could find
> and it seems like a reasonable place.
oh, is that really not mentioned? I think t
13 matches
Mail list logo
