On 06/13/2013 04:13 AM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
On 13/06/2013 05:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
On 13/06/2013 11:00, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 06/13/2013 04:13 AM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
On 13/06/2013 05:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
Wait a second, I didn't notice this before. There needs to be a better
way to test for the accuracy you need, or if the issue is lack of a proper
API for cycle counter reading, fix
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
Wait a second, I didn't notice this before. There needs to be a better
way to test for the
On 13/06/2013 05:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Eliezer Tamir eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300
depends on X86_TSC
Wait a second, I didn't notice this before. There
