On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 05:28:59PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Looks good to me. Minor comments. > > - * Each request uses 2 iovecs so we cap batching at MAX_IOVS / 2. > - * > * In practice, most of the requests that we batch either have no reply > at > * all or a brief reply. */ > max_batch_count = MAX(sock->rcvbuf / 4096, 1); > - max_batch_count = MIN(max_batch_count, MAX_IOVS / 2); > + max_batch_count = MIN(max_batch_count, max_iovs); > > Why does this change?
That leaked into the wrong commit. The comment portion got deleted because it's wrong (each request uses 1 iovec, not 2). The MAX_IOVS changes to max_iovs since we compute it dynamically in nl_sock_create(). > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c > index e0f9ed1..1a324a0 100644 > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ > #include "coverage.h" > #include "cfm.h" > #include "dpif.h" > +#include "dpif-linux.h" > #include "dynamic-string.h" > #include "fail-open.h" > #include "hmapx.h" > > I don't think this added include is necessary. If it is, it seems like a > layering violation. On my system the code compiles without it. It's not needed, thanks for pointing that out. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
