From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Changli Gao Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] rfs: Receive Flow Steering Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:38:17 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1271452358.16881.4486.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1271520633.16881.4754.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20100419.130905.210660275.davem@davemloft.net> <20100419.132318.192086187.davem@davemloft.net> <1271709121.3845.94.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , therbert@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f197.google.com ([209.85.223.197]:49257 "EHLO mail-iw0-f197.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751471Ab0DSXii convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:38:38 -0400 Received: by iwn35 with SMTP id 35so2625914iwn.21 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:38:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1271709121.3845.94.camel@edumazet-laptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Eric Dumazet = wrote: > > Hmm, this was not a formal patch, just an information. > > Problem is if hardware provides rxhash, will it be "consistent" too ? > > Does this problem has relationship with your patch? No. If the rxhash isn't provided by hardware, we can get more throughput from you patch, and on the other side, we don't lose anything but potential more hash collision. --=20 Regards=EF=BC=8C Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)