lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:24:54 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dada1@...mosbay.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: include/linux/pcounter.h * David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> > Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:26:18 -0800 > > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:03:54 +0100 Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote: > > > > > Yes, per connection basis. Some workloads want to open/close more > > > than 1000 sockets per second. > > > > ie: slowpath > > Definitely not slow path in the networking. > > Connection rates are definitely as, or more, important than packet > rates for certain workloads. but the main and fundamental question still remains unanswered (more than 3 weeks after Andrew asked that question): why was this piece of general infrastructure merged via net.git and not submitted to lkml ever? The code touching -mm does _not_ count as "review". Now that there was review of it and there is clearly controversy, the code should be reverted/undone and resubmitted after all review observations have been addressed. Just sitting around and ignoring objections, hoping for the code to hit v2.6.25 is rather un-nice ... Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists