[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinbfZX3Lmj9omq6a+QNErjfRFBQGi0Kr9osud5O@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:18:42 +0400
From: Dmitry Popov <dp@...hloadlab.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
William.Allen.Simpson@...il.com,
Andreas Petlund <apetlund@...ula.no>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"Pekka Savola (ipv6)" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...efidence.com>,
Yony Amit <yony@...sleep.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Artyom Gavrichenkov <ag@...hloadlab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: md5 signature check scaling
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> This is a huge patch :(
>
> Reading changelog, I dont understand what you did, and why you did this.
>
> You want to avoid taking the socket lock ? But we need to take it anyway
> to process packets.
Hi.
Well, I removed the dependence on socket lock from md5* functions. Yes
we need to take it to process packets, but sockets in LISTEN state may
process them without socket lock(patch coming soon). And I find md5
signature check scaling interesting even without LISTEN state scaling
patch.
Regards,
Dmitry.
--
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