On Mon, 2007-05-11 at 22:06 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > Radu Rendec wrote, On 11/05/2007 06:31 PM:
> > But still, Jamal, I need more explanations on what you meant by "cutdown > > on the conversion in u32_change()". I meant that it didnt seem necessary to me you have to do the conversion back and forth of the hmask as you do in the u32_change(). The basis of the patch i posted - which is based on yours - is to remove that change. If that doesnt work, please just send your patch as is and we can think of optimization later. > > And, before proceeding, I'd like to > > see your reply to Jarek's last email (at 15:49 +0100) about not getting > > 0xff in the end. On paper i get the same result with the new or old scheme for the bucket selection. As i stated on the patch - i never did test the theory. > Radu, as far as I know Jamal (from reading) he most probably is busy with > some conference! I actually have a day job and have to show up and meet TheMan, Jarek;-> Most of the days at work, i dont have time to look at external email account - but you can bet all horses you own i will get back to you within a few hours if you CC me on email. > Since these patches aren't so big I think you could > try Jamal's at first, and if it doesn't work, and nothing new from Jamal > in the meantime, resend your version. Cutdown in u32_change() seems to > add more to the fastpath, but maybe Jamal thinks about something else. I mean do most work on slow/config path. > > Jarek, because I have to test anyway, I'll include ffs(mask) in my patch > > and have it tested too. Lets have two patches - one for the le/be bucket selection and another for ffs. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
