On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:13:22PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: P> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:03:02PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: P> +> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:40:00PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: P> +> T> [please, follow-up on net@ only] P> +> T> P> +> T> Colleagues, P> +> T> P> +> T> here are some patches for review. P> +> P> +> I have some changes to patch after last compile, and haven't tested them P> +> befire sending patch. Here is an updated one. P> P> BTW. Not compiling in DEVICE_POLLING has any advantages except few bytes P> smaller kernel? P> I wonder if we could drop yet another kernel option and just set P> kern.poll.enable to 0 by default. P> If adding DEVICE_POLLING to the kernel doesn't cost additional locking, etc. P> in network data flow paths (which could lead to performance impact in some P> specific environments) can we just compile the code in always?
It adds a stub function call every tick. The function returns almost immediately if no interfaces do polling. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
