[REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes

[Andre Oppermann]

Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:13:22PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> P> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:03:02PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> P> +> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:40:00PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> P> +> T>   [please, follow-up on net@ only]
> P> +> T>
> P> +> T>   Colleagues,
> P> +> T>
> P> +> T>   here are some patches for review.
> P> +>
> P> +> I have some changes to patch after last compile, and haven't tested them
> P> +> befire sending patch. Here is an updated one.
> P>
> P> BTW. Not compiling in DEVICE_POLLING has any advantages except few bytes
> P> smaller kernel?
> P> I wonder if we could drop yet another kernel option and just set
> P> kern.poll.enable to 0 by default.
> P> If adding DEVICE_POLLING to the kernel doesn't cost additional locking, etc.
> P> in network data flow paths (which could lead to performance impact in some
> P> specific environments) can we just compile the code in always?
> 
> It adds a stub function call every tick. The function returns almost
> immediately if no interfaces do polling.

If it does a FOREACH(interface) then it should stay as a kernel option.

-- 
Andre