Source-Changes-D archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/net

   Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:49:48 +0900
   From: Ryota Ozaki <>

   And the priority provides asymmetric event deliveries; when the state
   repeats up and down, a down event is delivered if the final state is down
   while a down event and a up event are delivered if the final state is up.
   It's confusable to me.

This is the part I'm still not sure about: Roy's patch reduces up/down
to just down, but leaves down/up alone.  I'm guessing that Roy expects
applications like dhcpcd to want to clear some state if the link ever
goes down, but to be uninterested in knowing that the link went up for
a microsecond and then back down again.

   Can we pass events as they are as much as possible? I don't complain that
   event reductions in the kernel, but I think it should be down based on time
   series manner (e.g., pick latest three events), not based on some priority
   things. If we accept event reductions, we can do it with bit-encoding
   (w/o a linked list (memory allocations)), for example represent the state
   as 2 bits and encode event series into a variable (say 16 events in int).

Note that this queueing takes effect only if the link state changes
multiple times within maybe a few microseconds, before the softint can
run.  If your link state is changing that many times so quickly,
losing an event or two is probably the least of your worries -- but
you're probably more interested in seeing something like ...down...up
than ...up/up/up.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index