| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <204041392930448@web28m.yandex.ru> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:07:28 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net> To: David Fries <david@...es.net> Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] w1: bundle reply if the request was bundled Hi 19.02.2014, 11:19, "David Fries" <david@...es.net>: > A program can bundle multiple messages and commands together when > making one wire requests, which is going to be much more efficient > than sending lots of little packets one write at a time. With this > change the kernel will then bundle responses to requests that were > bundled, where it's probably even more important because programs will > typically execute select or a poll operation between reading packets, > which takes additional context switches. Your approach and patch seem correct, but I worry about how old commands are processed. Do I get it right, that replies to old non-bundle commands are queued back instead of sending immediately, but since it is not bundle but single command, queued reply is being sent 'almost' immediately? Basically, nothing changed to old clients, but there is new way to send batch requests now? And please make indent less paranoid about line length, it is really hard to read some lines, which were broken into pieces just because of that. -- 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