Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:14:50 +0100 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> Cc: rwatson@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Giant-free polling [PATCH] Message-ID: <20050311141450.GF9291@darkness.comp.waw.pl> In-Reply-To: <E1D9kbt-000FAj-00._pppp-mail-ru@f22.mail.ru> References: <20050311110234.GA87255@cell.sick.ru> <E1D9kbt-000FAj-00._pppp-mail-ru@f22.mail.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--LoV0Wh4nEaYAWgxX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:55:25PM +0300, dima wrote: +> I thought about using list also, but considered it to bring +> too much overhead to the code. The original idea of handling arrays +> seems to be very elegant. Overhead? Did you run any benchmarks to prove it? I find list-version much more elegant that using an array. I also don't like the idea of calling handler method with two locks held (one sx and one mutex)... There is still an unresolved problem (in your and our patch as well) of using ifnet structure fields without synchronization, as we don't have access tointerface's internal mutex, which protects those fields. --=20 Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! --LoV0Wh4nEaYAWgxX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCMafaForvXbEpPzQRAl+dAJ9AdTHF9ql8GoUOC5mNaUEuElND0gCgiMd1 t2kYhRWBlXV1c7b8IcoeAi4= =ndjc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LoV0Wh4nEaYAWgxX--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050311141450.GF9291>