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

From: Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de)
Date: Fri Nov 09 2001 - 08:39:30 EST

Next message: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: ScanMail Message: To Sender virus found and action taken."
Previous message: Jens Axboe: "Re: 2.4.14: crashing on heavy swap-load with SmartArray (dmesg/.config output)"
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 05:25:54AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> Why in the world do we need indirection function call pointers
> in TCP to handle that?

To handle the case of not having a separate TIME-WAIT table
(sorry for being unclear). Or alternatively several conditionals.

-Andi

-
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: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: ScanMail Message: To Sender virus found and action taken."
Previous message: Jens Axboe: "Re: 2.4.14: crashing on heavy swap-load with SmartArray (dmesg/.config output)"
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives?"
Reply: David S. Miller: "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