| To: | ak@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 23 May 2003 02:59:06 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030523110301.25b95026.ak@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030523102113.4fe38159.ak@xxxxxxx> <20030523.012205.123984853.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030523110301.25b95026.ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:03:01 +0200 On Fri, 23 May 2003 01:22:05 -0700 (PDT) "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Then what does that comment above it mean? :-) I guess it refers to the implementation, not the code. Ok, I fixed the fib_hash.c stuff to use get_order(). |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: small e100 ethernet driver problem -> %d, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |