From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iptables: lock free counters (alternate version) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:27:24 -0800 Message-ID: <4988B6BC.70006@hp.com> References: <20090130215700.965611970@vyatta.com> <20090130215729.416851870@vyatta.com> <498594B6.6000905@cosmosbay.com> <20090202153357.3ac6edfa@extreme> <49889440.60702@cosmosbay.com> <20090203193214.GH6607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4988A6F4.6000902@cosmosbay.com> <20090203211000.GI6607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090203132220.21a16ea1@extreme> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Eric Dumazet , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from g4t0015.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.18]:19375 "EHLO g4t0015.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751500AbZBCV1a (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:27:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090203132220.21a16ea1@extreme> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: So, is this patch stream at a point where I should try running the 32-core netperf tests against it? And if so, against which tree should I try applying patches? rick jones