Re: [NET]: Lockless loopback patch (version 2).

netdev

Re: [NET]: Lockless loopback patch (version 2).

To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [NET]: Lockless loopback patch (version 2).
From:	"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:39:18 -0700
Cc:	netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, akepner@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<20040621035702.6114bdbe.akpm@xxxxxxxx>
References:	<200406210510.i5L5A340018849@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040621035702.6114bdbe.akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Sender:	netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:57:02 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Still, I don't see why we need to use alloc_percpu() - why not
> statically allocate it?
> 
> This compiles, but does need runtime testing.

Looks good to me, applied.

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [NET]: Lockless loopback patch (version 2)., Andrew Morton Re: [NET]: Lockless loopback patch (version 2)., Arthur Kepner Re: [NET]: Lockless loopback patch (version 2)., David S. Miller <= [PATCH] preempt count regression w/ lockless loopback patch, Arthur Kepner Re: [PATCH] preempt count regression w/ lockless loopback patch, David S. Miller Re: [PATCH] preempt count regression w/ lockless loopback patch, Arthur Kepner Re: [PATCH] preempt count regression w/ lockless loopback patch, David S. Miller

Previous by Date:	Re: RFC: [1/2] PPP MPPE module, Christoph Hellwig
Next by Date:	Re: RFC: [1/2] PPP MPPE module, Matt Domsch
Previous by Thread:	Re: [NET]: Lockless loopback patch (version 2)., Arthur Kepner
Next by Thread:	[PATCH] preempt count regression w/ lockless loopback patch, Arthur Kepner
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]