Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:08:45 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IPFW update frequency Message-ID: <20070331100845.A307@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <200703311247.19940.max@love2party.net>; from max@love2party.net on Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:47:12AM %2B0100 References: <460D75CE.70804@elischer.org> <460E19EE.3020700@freebsd.org> <20070331022741.A94927@xorpc.icir.org> <200703311247.19940.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:47:12AM +0100, Max Laier wrote: > On Saturday 31 March 2007 11:27, Luigi Rizzo wrote: ... > See above, ipfw is working in parallel already. In addition to that, > using a ref-count would be worse! Instead of two atomic operations you'd > then have to pay for four: lock ref unlock work lock unref unlock All of > which can contentend each other. This will most likely cause more not sure what you have in mind, but the ref() and unref() are already atomic ops. > serialization than we currently have. Again, please don't rush any > hacks! relax, nobody is rushing, we are in discussion mode! cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070331100845.A307>