Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:40:38 -0000 From: "Barry Scott" <tsbarry@nortelnetworks.com> To: "'freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG'" <freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: i4b and netgraph (was: I4B support for US ISDN?) Message-ID: <81C8165DD2A7D111AD700000F81F29CB02504A34@nwcwi19.europe.nortel.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> - as far as i understood the netgraph docs, they also use function calls > and _no_ message queues for interlayer communication. So going > to netgraph would not solve the mentioned problem. BTW: i once > asked Terry about the queue/function tradeoffs when that was > discussed on the mailinglist and got no reply. Having worked on both function call and queued netgraph like software I have to agree that function call is a major design bug in netgraph. I'm sure netgraph uses direct call to get speed. But in DEC we benchmarked queuing vs. direct call and there is no advantage. On the other hand the queuing gives many advantages. Very few reentrancy problems. Never overflow the stack. Simpler software - faster in design, implementation and debug etc... BArry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isdn" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?81C8165DD2A7D111AD700000F81F29CB02504A34>