> So I'm finally understanding this patch. And I finally see that it is > adding a 16-byte memcpy to the data path for every packet we send. Is > the overhead of this really negligible? Can we think of a better way to > handle this rare failure (double failover that causes an ARP to be lost) > in a way that doesn't penalize the common datapath?
Never mind, I see we do the memcmp now also. And I remember that I hated added it originally. So can anyone think of a way to avoid it in general? (But it's not a blocker for this patch) - R. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
