Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?

• Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• In reply to: Andi Kleen: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Next in thread: Andi Kleen: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Reply: Andi Kleen: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

   From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
   Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:17:55 +0100

   Fine if you don't mind an indirect function call pointer somewhere in the TCP
   hash path.
   
The hashes are sized at boot time, we can just reduce
the size when the boot time option says "small machine"
or whatever.

Why in the world do we need indirection function call pointers
in TCP to handle that?

Franks a lot,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• In reply to: Andi Kleen: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Next in thread: Andi Kleen: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Reply: Andi Kleen: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 21:00:22 EST