| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumissionpolicy!) |
| From: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:24:41 -0700 |
| Cc: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Candela Technologies |
| References: | <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101062253440.18916-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
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. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear (greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) http://www.candelatech.com Author of ScryMUD: scry.wanfear.com 4444 (Released under GPL) http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Ben Greear |
|---|---|
| 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' sumissionpolicy!), Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |