[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090422174831.GA11539@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:48:31 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)
* Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> If this could be done without recursion, I am pretty sure
> netfilter and network guys would have done it. I found Linus
> reaction quite shocking IMHO, considering hard work done by all
> people on this.
Btw., i didnt find Linus's reaction shocking at all, nor did i
understand it as any criticism of prior (and future) good work of
the people involved. I found it to be what it was: a forceful
(because repeated) criticism of a bad patch.
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