| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:00:10 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20010107042959.A14330@gruyere.muc.suse.de> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Andi Kleen wrote: > Does it make any significant different with the ifconfig from newest > nettools? I > removed a quadratic algorithm from ifconfig's device parsing, and with that I > was > able to display a few thousand alias devices on a unpatched kernel in > reasonable time. I think someone should just flush ifconfig down some toilet. a wrapper around "ip" to to give the same look and feel as ifconfig would be a good thing so that some stupid program that depends on ifconfig look and feel would be a good start. 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" cheers, jamal |
| 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!), Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |