Re: Improving PACKET_{RX,TX}_RING documentation

["Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Carsten,

On 05/17/2014 03:13 PM, Carsten Andrich wrote:
> Hello again everyone,
> 
> roughly 3 weeks ago the aftermath of an actually minor patch to fix an
> inaccuracy in packet.7's PACKET_TX_RING-related documentation led me to
> offer improving the entire PACKET_{RX,TX}_RING-documentation.
> Since I do happen to have most of my spare time back by now, I'd like to
> tackle this effort before I change my mind :)

Thanks for following up!

> On 04/24/2014 12:21 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> I'd leave that plan largely to you. It sounds like Willem and
>> Daniel are willing to help out.
> 
> I'd like to start with getting packet.7's documentation of
> PACKET_{RX,TX}_RING into a shape, that should allow most readers to
> actually use it without consulting packet_mmap.txt. The latter can be
> quite confusing for those unfamiliar with PACKET_{RX,TX}_RING.
> 
> I plan to do the following to packet.7:
>      1. Increase detail of PACKET_{RX,TX}_RING socket options, including
>         description of struct tpacket_hdr and anything else required to
>         operate the ring.
>      2. Move some details from other sockopts (e.g. PACKET_LOSS) into
>         *_RING.
>      3. Add fully functional example source code for simple
>         PACKET_{RX,TX}_RING operation (initialization and operation).
>         This may be as much as 3 different example programs if I
>         incorporate [2] and [3] in an appropriate manner. It might be a
>         good idea to add a non-*_RING example as well.
>      4. Add a warning about inferior _TX_RING performance [1] which I
>         suffered from only recently in the measurements I made for my
>         thesis on Linux 3.14.
>      5. Other minor changes that'll come up while taking care of 1 thru
>         4 :)
> 
> Any suggestions regarding this rough course of action?

Well, I can't speak to the fine technical details, but the plan looks 
rational to me. Perhaps Neil, Willem, or Daniel has a comment.

Just by the way, I suggest CCing netdeve-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org on all patches.
It may be that someone else also comments.

Cheers,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html