[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170908.144458.596885875256619458.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 14:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eduval@...zon.com
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, vallish@...zon.com, shuah@...nel.org,
richardcochran@...il.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
anchalag@...zon.com, dwmw@...zon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] enable hires timer to timeout datagram socket
From: Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 11:55:21 -0700
> I agree. I would prefer to understand here what is the technical
> reason not to accept these patches other than "use other system
> calls".
I explained this, let me reiterate:
====================
And most importantly, letting the kernel have flexibility in this area
is absolutely essential for various forms of optimizations and power
savings.
====================
Powered by blists - more mailing lists