From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFCv4 PATCH 1/2] net: Introduce recvmmsg socket syscall Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20091009.142751.142357109.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090916170738.GC7699@ghostprotocols.net> <20091009193520.GD12982@ghostprotocols.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: caitlin.bestler@gmail.com, vanhoof@redhat.com, williams@redhat.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, nir.tzachar@gmail.com, niv@us.ibm.com, paul.moore@hp.com, remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com, steve@chygwyn.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: acme@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:56345 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760800AbZJIV14 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:27:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20091009193520.GD12982@ghostprotocols.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:35:20 -0300 > The second patch in this series has issues, I still have to > investigate it properly, study removing the skb_queue_head lock like TCP > does, but the first patch seems to be OK and already providing good > results at least as reported by Nir, if there aren't any other concerns > about the API, can we get it into net-next-2.6? Please make a formal submission of that first patch with all proper signoffs and without the "RFC" in the subject line and I'll apply it. Thanks!