[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080226092454.GA10987@elte.hu>
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 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