Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*net\/core\/flow\.c\s+cpu\s+handling\?\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. Re: net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:50:50 -0800
Very likely, the code is how it is in order to make the 2.4.x backport of this code and the 2.6.x version as similar as humanly possible.
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00010.html (7,748 bytes)

2. net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:22:55 +1100
Hi again, Is there something I'm missing, or wouldn't the code in net/core/flow.c be much simpler if: 1) flow_cache_cpu_prepare() were done for each possible cpu, not dynamically as they came up. 2)
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00011.html (13,120 bytes)

3. Re: net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:26:40 +1100
Hmm, AFAICT the patch I sent should be easier, not harder to backport. Anyway, I'm carrying the patch as part of the hotplug CPU patches: we can discuss it once 2.6.0 is out. Thanks, Rusty. -- Anyone
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00021.html (8,050 bytes)

4. Re: net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:11:45 +0000
Well, the current code is wrong for 2.6 and breaks badly for machines with more than 32/64 cpus. -- Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> - Freelance Hacker Contact me for driver hacking and kernel developm
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00023.html (8,562 bytes)

5. Re: net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: <pp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:45:21 -0800
I intend to review your patch today, there is no justification for the problems you've pointed out in this code regardless of how difficult or easy fixing it makes a backport.
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00026.html (8,558 bytes)

6. Re: net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: vem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:55:39 -0800
I totally understand, I am in no way trying to justify what the code is doing.
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00028.html (8,580 bytes)

7. Re: net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:50:50 -0800
Very likely, the code is how it is in order to make the 2.4.x backport of this code and the 2.6.x version as similar as humanly possible.
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00623.html (7,814 bytes)

8. net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:22:55 +1100
Hi again, Is there something I'm missing, or wouldn't the code in net/core/flow.c be much simpler if: 1) flow_cache_cpu_prepare() were done for each possible cpu, not dynamically as they came up. 2)
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00624.html (13,120 bytes)

9. Re: net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:26:40 +1100
Hmm, AFAICT the patch I sent should be easier, not harder to backport. Anyway, I'm carrying the patch as part of the hotplug CPU patches: we can discuss it once 2.6.0 is out. Thanks, Rusty. -- Anyone
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00634.html (8,086 bytes)

10. Re: net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:11:45 +0000
Well, the current code is wrong for 2.6 and breaks badly for machines with more than 32/64 cpus. -- Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> - Freelance Hacker Contact me for driver hacking and kernel developm
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00636.html (8,710 bytes)

11. Re: net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:45:21 -0800
I intend to review your patch today, there is no justification for the problems you've pointed out in this code regardless of how difficult or easy fixing it makes a backport.
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00639.html (8,661 bytes)

12. Re: net/core/flow.c cpu handling? (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:55:39 -0800
I totally understand, I am in no way trying to justify what the code is doing.
/archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00641.html (8,708 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu