Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761818AbYBZJZm (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:25:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759350AbYBZJZW (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:25:22 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:34674 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756839AbYBZJZT (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:25:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:24:54 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, dada1@cosmosbay.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: include/linux/pcounter.h Message-ID: <20080226092454.GA10987@elte.hu> References: <20080216025051.751b4a86.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47B6D12A.3090401@cosmosbay.com> <20080216112618.ec450f9b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080216.215401.20463603.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080216.215401.20463603.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1304 Lines: 34 * David Miller wrote: > From: Andrew Morton > Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:26:18 -0800 > > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:03:54 +0100 Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > Yes, per connection basis. Some workloads want to open/close more > > > than 1000 sockets per second. > > > > ie: slowpath > > Definitely not slow path in the networking. > > Connection rates are definitely as, or more, important than packet > rates for certain workloads. but the main and fundamental question still remains unanswered (more than 3 weeks after Andrew asked that question): why was this piece of general infrastructure merged via net.git and not submitted to lkml ever? The code touching -mm does _not_ count as "review". Now that there was review of it and there is clearly controversy, the code should be reverted/undone and resubmitted after all review observations have been addressed. Just sitting around and ignoring objections, hoping for the code to hit v2.6.25 is rather un-nice ... Ingo -- 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/