On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 08:01:46PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> > any objections about commiting this improvement to tun(4)? A> > In my ng_device I have a similar function ngdwrite(), which was A> > cut-n-pasted from tunwrite(). And my tests with a patched ng_device have A> > shown 30% speedup on large writes. I don't think it will help tun(4) A> > to be a much faster, since tunwrite() isn't a bottleneck, but I think A> > it is worth considering. The patch was tested on a production PPPoE access A> > concentrator (RELENG_4 however). A> A> Could you check tap(4) as well? You can do the same optimization there A> as well (IIRC).
Yes, you are right. We are going to have triple cut'n'paste: if_tun.c, ng_device.c, if_tap.c. What about m_uiocopy()? The question is where can we put this function? P.S. We already have md_get_uio() in libmchain. But it doesn't do exactly same thing. And libmchain does not support Big Endians, so we probably don't want to make tun and tap depend on libmchain. P.P.S. BTW, ng_eiface+ng_device is going to supersede tap(4), same way as ng_iface+ng_device is going to supersede tun(4). :) -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
