From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 22 20:44:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from srv4-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (argonio.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C14315633; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:44:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from visi0n@aux-tech.org) Received: from ebola.chinatown.org (dl7089-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.208.89]) by srv4-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id DAA24073; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 03:50:04 -0200 (BRV) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:41:56 -0200 (EDT) From: visi0n X-Sender: visi0n@ebola.chinatown.org To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sk_buff vs mbuf In-Reply-To: <62986.945886346@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message , you wr > ote: > > > > > Is there someone closer to a linux box, tell me if sk_buff is more > >fast than mbuf. I was reading these codes but I can't figure out the final > >result. > > I have a Linux system here, but I don't understand you question. > The question is what is more fast the sk_buff method or mbuf method ? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message