| To: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumissionpolicy!) |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 06:29:22 +0100 |
| Cc: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <3A580BA9.ADAA2B97@candelatech.com>; from greearb@candelatech.com on Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:24:41PM -0700 |
| References: | <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101062253440.18916-100000@shell.cyberus.ca> <3A580BA9.ADAA2B97@candelatech.com> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:24:41PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > jamal wrote: > > > > > Not to stray from the subject, Ben's effort is still needed. I think real > > numbers are useful instead of claims like it "displayed faster" > > A single #define near the top of the patch will turn it on/off, so > benchmarking should be fairly easy. Please suggest benchmarks you > consider valid. The only issue I know was the long delay in ifconfig. If that's fixed I see nothing else that would be worth benchmarking. -Andi |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumissionpolicy!), Ben Greear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |