Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+$2\/4$\s+packet\s+scheduler\s+bad\s+TDIFF

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+$2\/4$\s+packet\s+scheduler\s+bad\s+TDIFF_SAFE\s+in\s+csz\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: bert hubert <ahu@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:00:16 -0700; This code in the csz scheduler, is just plain broken. The TDIFF_SAFE effectively expands to: unsigned long delay = now - q->t_c; if (delay > 0) { delay = 0; goto do_reset; } if (delay >> q->delta_log; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00817.html (8,636 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:45:06 -0700; This bug has been there since day one, wow. Good spotting, applied.; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00823.html (8,542 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: id S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 29 Jun 2004 18:22:37 -0400; That scheduler is only a relic. Nobody uses it ;-> Check the cofig help. Pretty sure if you study it youll find a lot more bugs. cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00829.html (9,417 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:28:22 -0700; Right, but it is good that we fix the obvious ones when we can. Stephen's fix resulted in being able to simplify some PSCHED_* macros significantly.; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00831.html (8,566 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:49:07 -0700; jiffies.h if (BITS_PER_LONG < 64) u64 get_jiffies_64(void); static inline u64 get_jiffies_64(void) { return (u64)jiffies; }; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00834.html (9,177 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: 29 Jun 2004 18:43:45 -0400; Sounds like good logic to me. BTW, that jiffies fix, statemnt from Steve: Is this overhead on 32 bit machines or applies on 64 bit as well? Note that code is used in the fast path.; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg00837.html (9,434 bytes)
7. [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:00:16 -0700; This code in the csz scheduler, is just plain broken. The TDIFF_SAFE effectively expands to: unsigned long delay = now - q->t_c; if (delay > 0) { delay = 0; goto do_reset; } if (delay >> q->delta_log; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01701.html (8,636 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:45:06 -0700; This bug has been there since day one, wow. Good spotting, applied.; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01707.html (8,604 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 29 Jun 2004 18:22:37 -0400; That scheduler is only a relic. Nobody uses it ;-> Check the cofig help. Pretty sure if you study it youll find a lot more bugs. cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01713.html (9,522 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:28:22 -0700; Right, but it is good that we fix the obvious ones when we can. Stephen's fix resulted in being able to simplify some PSCHED_* macros significantly.; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01715.html (8,696 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:49:07 -0700; jiffies.h if (BITS_PER_LONG < 64) u64 get_jiffies_64(void); static inline u64 get_jiffies_64(void) { return (u64)jiffies; }; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01718.html (9,377 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] (2/4) packet scheduler bad TDIFF_SAFE in csz (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 29 Jun 2004 18:43:45 -0400; Sounds like good logic to me. BTW, that jiffies fix, statemnt from Steve: Is this overhead on 32 bit machines or applies on 64 bit as well? Note that code is used in the fast path.; /archives/netdev/2004-06/msg01721.html (9,607 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]