[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:47:40 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] bridge: 64bit rx/tx counters
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:39:36 +0200 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Note : should be applied after "net: Introduce
> u64_stats_sync infrastructure", if accepted.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> [PATCH net-next-2.6] bridge: 64bit rx/tx counters
>
> Use u64_stats_sync infrastructure to provide 64bit rx/tx
> counters even on 32bit hosts.
>
> It is safe to use a single u64_stats_sync for rx and tx,
> because BH is disabled on both, and we use per_cpu data.
>
Oh for fuck's sake. Will you guys just stop adding generic kernel
infrastructure behind everyone's backs?
Had I actually been aware that this stuff was going into the tree I'd
have pointed out that the u64_stats_* api needs renaming.
s/stats/counter/ because it has no business assuming that the counter
is being used for statistics.
And all this open-coded per-cpu counter stuff added all over the place.
Were percpu_counters tested or reviewed and found inadequate and unfixable?
If so, please do tell.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists