Fair enough.
Acked-by: Ben Pfaff
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 06:48:42PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Perhaps it's premature optimization, but I think bonding is a pretty
> important use case, and I didn't want to require an exclusive lock
> when running bond_choose_output_slave().
>
> Ethan
>
> O
Perhaps it's premature optimization, but I think bonding is a pretty
important use case, and I didn't want to require an exclusive lock
when running bond_choose_output_slave().
Ethan
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:07:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:07:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
Any particular reason you chose to use a read/write lock here? I've
read the patch but I haven't yet audited the r/w choice in each case.
___
dev mailing list
Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
---
lib/bond.c | 190 ++--
1 file changed, 135 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/bond.c b/lib/bond.c
index b3ae0c4..de9966c 100644
--- a/lib/bond.c
+++ b/lib/bond.c
@@ -109,30 +109,39 @@ struct bo
