Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > 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.
If it does a FOREACH(interface) then it should stay as a kernel option. -- Andre _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
