Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:37:09 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@netflix.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r304218 - head/sys/netinet Message-ID: <20160816133709.GL22212@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <16561701-B1C6-4BE3-B9BA-3535F564620F@netflix.com> References: <201608161240.u7GCeuWS082118@repo.freebsd.org> <20160816131805.GK22212@zxy.spb.ru> <16561701-B1C6-4BE3-B9BA-3535F564620F@netflix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 06:21:14AM -0700, Randall Stewart via svn-src-all wrote: > > In theory it *could* be MFC’d to stable-10 and 11 but I am not sure we want to do that. I am > told by Drew that it does improve performance since in stable-10 you are getting the INFO_WLOCK() > but I am not sure if folks want it MFC’d… > > One thing that this code leads us towards is we *in theory* could move the lock acquisition to the > timer code itself (I think).. we would have to make sure that the callout functions did do the > unlock since thats part of the lock-dance with reference… but its theoretically possible :-) What reason to not MFC? I mean MFCed all don't break API/ABI.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160816133709.GL22212>