[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121031.141618.286962451107179252.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:16:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jasowang@...hat.com
Cc: mst@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, maxk@...lcomm.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, krkumar2@...ibm.com,
ernesto.martin@...sat.com, haixiao@...iper.net
Subject: Re: [net-next resend v4 5/7] tuntap: multiqueue support
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:15:49 +0800
> @@ -110,6 +110,11 @@ struct tap_filter {
> unsigned char addr[FLT_EXACT_COUNT][ETH_ALEN];
> };
>
> +/* 1024 is probably a high enough limit: modern hypervisors seem to support on
> + * the order of 100-200 CPUs so this leaves us some breathing space if we want
> + * to match a queue per guest CPU. */
Please don't format comments like this. Put that final "*/" on it's
own line.
I'm really perplexed how you can get it right elsewhere in your
patches, and then botch it up only in a few select locations :-/
> +/* We try to identify a flow through its rxhash first. The reason that
> + * we do not check rxq no. is becuase some cards(e.g 82599), chooses
> + * the rxq based on the txq where the last packet of the flow comes. As
> + * the userspace application move between processors, we may get a
> + * different rxq no. here. If we could not get rxhash, then we would
> + * hope the rxq no. may help here.
> + */
For example, this one is done right.
--
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