Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*your\s+mail\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*your\s+mail\s*$/: 38 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

1. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: bert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:46:11 -0400 (EDT); What kind of performance impact (if any) does this patch have? - James -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00202.html (7,698 bytes)
2. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:38:42 -0400; This issue is already fixed in 2.4 and 2.5 :) This patch breaks tg3 build, and operation... tg3 wants a different operation than net/core/dev.c. Jeff; /archives/netdev/2003-09/msg00551.html (7,945 bytes)
3. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:21:23 +0300 (MSK); ... I did not write the phrases in <<<>>>. :-) Yes, I really insist: disabling delayed ACKs is _never_ good. Such curcumstances just do not exist in the nature. I do not understand what happens in y; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00006.html (8,448 bytes)
4. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:37:39 -0700 (MST); As far as you know. You have not seen it so do not believe it. I guess I have to disagree with you here :-) "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of ..." Basically it is no longe; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00007.html (8,520 bytes)
5. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:55:23 +0300 (MSK); Ack. The subject is closed. Alexey; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00008.html (8,024 bytes)
6. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:33:28 +0100; Claiming something and not providing tcpdumps of it is at least highly dubious. I also have a hard time to see how delayed acks should introduce user visible delays (assuming your send/receive buffer; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00009.html (9,059 bytes)
7. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:36:22 -0700 (MST); I know. That's the whole problem. People have a hard time seeing something, so they deny its existence. ron; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00010.html (8,331 bytes)
8. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:49:10 +0100; When you claim something that fails the sanity checks of several other people and you blame Linux it is your duty to provide evidence for it. In TCP world the standard evidence is a tcpdump. tcpdumps; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00011.html (9,192 bytes)
9. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Matt Sottile <matt@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:00:17 -0700 (MST); Ron should be sending the TCP dump along soon. For your information, the application we're encountering this problem with is one where we are sending data periodically across the network at the highe; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00012.html (10,503 bytes)
10. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:16:19 -0700 (MST); oh, all right :-) attached. sample: blue is sending a request to xed for a packet. Supermon (on xed) in turn sends status requests to several other nodes. Xed formats each "blob" of data from the oth; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00013.html (12,598 bytes)
11. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:42:34 +0100; I remember at least one other report of such a spurious delay too. I suspect the problem is not the delayed ack algorithm as is, but the new user context TCP fast path. 2.4 added a somewhat experimen; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00014.html (10,959 bytes)
12. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Matt Sottile <matt@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:19:11 -0700 (MST); So now that we've shown that our program does in fact exist, and does lose significant performance due to nastiness in the linux TCP implementation, what does this mean? Since this program exists in; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00017.html (8,715 bytes)
13. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: "Nivedita Singhvi" <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:46:01 -0800; It could be that pingpong is biting you because of the occasional write from blue to xed: 1. 1012942315.229586 eth0 < blue.acl.lanl.gov.32790 > xed.acl.lanl.gov.2709: P 2:3(1) ack 1534 win 8931 <nop,; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00018.html (10,883 bytes)
14. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Muhammad Jaseemuddin <jaseem@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 17:37:06 -0500; Is there any card out there that is supporting 802.1p and does linux have device driver for that? I will appreciate your reply. Cheers, - Muhammad Jaseemuddin; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00019.html (7,837 bytes)
15. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:14:59 +0200; One big problem in my opinion is how the MII monitoring is implemented. It uses ioctls that are marked for removal already in vger and hardcodes data structures in an an ugly and non portable way. I; /archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00088.html (9,051 bytes)
16. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:59:21 -0400 (EDT); ... The MII ioctls are not marked for removal. Instead something far more destructive was done: the ioctl constant was changed without changing the name. This breaks both forward and backwards compat; /archives/netdev/2001-08/msg00089.html (8,215 bytes)
17. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:40:48 -0500; If you look in ip_route_input_slow() (packet bing routed from one interface to another) or ip_route_output_slow() (packets originating at this box) you will see a fib_lookup() which tries to match th; /archives/netdev/2000-07/msg00082.html (8,173 bytes)
18. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: ux@bigfoot.com>; Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:34:30 +0530 (IST); Thank you very much for your reply. I have some more doubts. (1) unsigned char tb_data[0]; last line of struct fib_table in ip_fib.h and then, struct fn_zone *fz; struct fn_hash *t = (struct fn_hash; /archives/netdev/2000-07/msg00085.html (7,639 bytes)
19. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:32:33 +0100; I think (1) is much cleaner You could put that information into the skb's cb structure. TCP uses it for similar purposes. It is currently 48 bytes. It is free to use for you. Just return 1 then and s; /archives/netdev/2000-03/msg00026.html (9,170 bytes)
20. Re: your mail (score: 1): Author: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:46:11 -0400 (EDT); What kind of performance impact (if any) does this patch have? - James -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00736.html (7,728 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]