[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51AF59B0.6080101@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:30:56 +0300
From: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, HPA <hpa@...or.com>,
Eilon Greenstien <eilong@...adcom.com>,
Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>,
Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer@...ir.org.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 net-next 2/7] net: add low latency socket poll
On 05/06/2013 18:21, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 13:34 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
>
>
> This is probably too big to be inlined, and nonblock should be a bool
> It would also make sense to give end_time as a parameter, so that the
> polling() code could really give a end_time for the whole duration of
> poll().
>
> (You then should test can_poll_ll(end_time) _before_ call to
> ndo_ll_poll())
how would you handle a nonblocking operation in that case?
I guess if we have a socket option, then we don't need to handle none
blocking any diffrent, since the user specified exactly how much time to
waste polling. right?
--
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