|To:||Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 3 Oct 2003 02:23:38 -0700|
|References:||<3F7C6F3B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20031003082642.GF42593@gaz.sfgoth.com> <email@example.com> <20031003084847.GH42593@gaz.sfgoth.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20031003092617.GI42593@gaz.sfgoth.com>|
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 02:26:17 -0700 Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was more thinking about the other timestamp users. I don't consider > tcpdump something that needs as much optimization. Well, it's is the fact that usage of the timestamp is rare which we're trying to take advantage of. The whole idea is that fast_timestamp_to_timeval() can be a bit slow or suboptimal in order to make store_fast_timestamp() a lot faster or access less shared or locked state.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|