Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:01:31 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: tsbarry@nortelnetworks.com (Barry Scott) Cc: freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: i4b and netgraph (was: I4B support for US ISDN?) Message-ID: <199901282001.MAA03370@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <81C8165DD2A7D111AD700000F81F29CB02504A34@nwcwi19.europe.nortel.com> from Barry Scott at "Jan 28, 99 11:40:38 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Barry Scott writes: > > - as far as i understood the netgraph docs, they also use function calls > > and _no_ message queues for interlayer communication. So going > > to netgraph would not solve the mentioned problem. BTW: i once > > asked Terry about the queue/function tradeoffs when that was > > discussed on the mailinglist and got no reply. > > Having worked on both function call and queued netgraph like > software I have to agree that function call is a major design > bug in netgraph. > > I'm sure netgraph uses direct call to get speed. But in DEC we > benchmarked queuing vs. direct call and there is no advantage. Hang on you two! Netgraph supports queueing!! In fact, it must if you want some nodes to run at other than splnet(). -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isdn" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901282001.MAA03370>