Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:39:35 -0700 From: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Jack F Vogel <jfv@freebsd.org>, "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, "net@freebsd.org" <net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Flow ID, LACP, and igb Message-ID: <CAFOYbcnqW-v9_HRvhmdbHxbQE4V75NEPRYGBowxSORHLkNG0Gg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmom8TppCc1%2Bio53cCct17NV=7x374zfE7Zq1ShSZ72bufA@mail.gmail.com> References: <D01A0CB2-B1E3-4F4B-97FA-4C821C0E3FD2@FreeBSD.org> <521BBD21.4070304@freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmom8TppCc1%2Bio53cCct17NV=7x374zfE7Zq1ShSZ72bufA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
None that I can think of. On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > ... is there any reason we wouldn't want to have the TX and RX for a given > flow mapped to the same core? > > > > > -adrian >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFOYbcnqW-v9_HRvhmdbHxbQE4V75NEPRYGBowxSORHLkNG0Gg>