Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-11 Thread Eliezer Tamir
On 11/06/2013 11:14, David Miller wrote: From: Eliezer Tamir Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:49:31 +0300 I would like to hear opinions on what needs to be added to make this feature complete. I actually would like to see the Kconfig option go away, that's my only request. OK, I will send a

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-11 Thread Eliezer Tamir
On 11/06/2013 10:32, Eric Dumazet wrote: On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 09:49 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote: I would like to hear opinions on what needs to be added to make this feature complete. The list I have so far is: 1. add a socket option Yes, please. I do not believe all sockets on the machine

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-11 Thread David Miller
From: Eliezer Tamir Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:49:31 +0300 > I would like to hear opinions on what needs to be added to make this > feature complete. > > The list I have so far is: > 1. add a socket option > 2. support for poll/select > 3. support for epoll I actually would like to see the

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-11 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 09:49 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote: > I would like to hear opinions on what needs to be added to make this > feature complete. > > The list I have so far is: > 1. add a socket option Yes, please. I do not believe all sockets on the machine are candidate for low latency. In

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-11 Thread Eliezer Tamir
On 11/06/2013 07:24, David Miller wrote: From: Eliezer Tamir Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:25:42 +0300 Here is the text from the RFC and v2 cover letters, updated and merged. If this is too long, please tell me what you think should be removed. It's perfect, and since this went through so many

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-11 Thread Eliezer Tamir
On 11/06/2013 07:24, David Miller wrote: From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:25:42 +0300 Here is the text from the RFC and v2 cover letters, updated and merged. If this is too long, please tell me what you think should be removed. It's perfect, and

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-11 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 09:49 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote: I would like to hear opinions on what needs to be added to make this feature complete. The list I have so far is: 1. add a socket option Yes, please. I do not believe all sockets on the machine are candidate for low latency. In fact

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-11 Thread David Miller
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:49:31 +0300 I would like to hear opinions on what needs to be added to make this feature complete. The list I have so far is: 1. add a socket option 2. support for poll/select 3. support for epoll I actually

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-11 Thread Eliezer Tamir
On 11/06/2013 10:32, Eric Dumazet wrote: On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 09:49 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote: I would like to hear opinions on what needs to be added to make this feature complete. The list I have so far is: 1. add a socket option Yes, please. I do not believe all sockets on the machine

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-11 Thread Eliezer Tamir
On 11/06/2013 11:14, David Miller wrote: From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:49:31 +0300 I would like to hear opinions on what needs to be added to make this feature complete. I actually would like to see the Kconfig option go away, that's my only

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-10 Thread David Miller
From: Eliezer Tamir Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:25:42 +0300 > Here is the text from the RFC and v2 cover letters, updated and > merged. If this is too long, please tell me what you think should > be removed. It's perfect, and since this went through so many iterations I included the changelog

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-10 Thread Eliezer Tamir
On 10/06/2013 23:41, David Miller wrote: From: Eliezer Tamir Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:39:30 +0300 I removed the select/poll patch (was 5/7 in v9) from the set. The rest are the same patches that were in v9. Reply to this email with some text to put in the merge commit, including basic

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-10 Thread David Miller
From: Eliezer Tamir Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:39:30 +0300 > I removed the select/poll patch (was 5/7 in v9) from the set. > The rest are the same patches that were in v9. > > Please consider applying. > > Thanks to everyone for their input. There used to be a really nice, detailed and

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-10 Thread David Miller
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:39:30 +0300 I removed the select/poll patch (was 5/7 in v9) from the set. The rest are the same patches that were in v9. Please consider applying. Thanks to everyone for their input. There used to be a really

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-10 Thread Eliezer Tamir
On 10/06/2013 23:41, David Miller wrote: From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:39:30 +0300 I removed the select/poll patch (was 5/7 in v9) from the set. The rest are the same patches that were in v9. Reply to this email with some text to put in the merge

Re: [PATCH v10 net-next 0/6] net: low latency Ethernet device polling

2013-06-10 Thread David Miller
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:25:42 +0300 Here is the text from the RFC and v2 cover letters, updated and merged. If this is too long, please tell me what you think should be removed. It's perfect, and since this went through so many iterations I