: Mercredi 25 Mars 2015 14:41:46
Objet: Re: Fragment questions
On 03/24/15 10:26, Emeric POUPON wrote:
Hello,
Please find attached a proposal using atomic_fetchadd.
Best Regards,
Emeric
Hi,
Your proposal using atomic_fetchadd() looks fine to me.
I think however we should define the code
On 03/24/15 10:26, Emeric POUPON wrote:
Hello,
Please find attached a proposal using atomic_fetchadd.
Best Regards,
Emeric
Hi,
Your proposal using atomic_fetchadd() looks fine to me.
I think however we should define the code like a function, because the
htons() might be a macro,
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 03/24/15 10:26, Emeric POUPON wrote:
Please find attached a proposal using atomic_fetchadd.
...
I think however we should define the code like a function, because the
htons() might be a macro, referring the input argument multiple times ...
Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 19:56 +0100:
On 03/20/15 19:02, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 20 March 2015 at 10:58, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
- in the ip_newid macro, we do htons(V_ip_id++)) if we do not
2015 20:04:44
Objet: Re: Fragment questions
On 20 March 2015 at 11:56, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 03/20/15 19:02, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 20 March 2015 at 10:58, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
- in the ip_newid macro
:54:33
Objet: Re: Fragment questions
On 03/19/15 12:38, Emeric POUPON wrote:
Hello,
I noticed two questionable things in the fragmentation code:
- in ip_fragment, we do not copy the flowid from the original mbuf to the
fragmented mbuf. Therefore we may output very desynchronized fragments
On 20 March 2015 at 11:56, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 03/20/15 19:02, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 20 March 2015 at 10:58, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
- in the ip_newid macro, we do htons(V_ip_id++)) if we do not use
On 03/20/15 19:02, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 20 March 2015 at 10:58, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
- in the ip_newid macro, we do htons(V_ip_id++)) if we do not use
randomized id.
In multi core systems, we may emit successive packets with
On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
- in the ip_newid macro, we do htons(V_ip_id++)) if we do not use randomized
id.
In multi core systems, we may emit successive packets with the same id.
Will using a mutex or an atomic macro fix this issue when incrementing
the V_ip_id ?
--HPS
On 20 March 2015 at 10:58, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 03/20/15 14:31, Emeric POUPON wrote:
- in the ip_newid macro, we do htons(V_ip_id++)) if we do not use
randomized id.
In multi core systems, we may emit successive packets with the same id.
Will using a mutex or an
On 03/19/15 12:38, Emeric POUPON wrote:
Hello,
I noticed two questionable things in the fragmentation code:
- in ip_fragment, we do not copy the flowid from the original mbuf to the
fragmented mbuf. Therefore we may output very desynchronized fragments (first
fragment emitted far later the
Hello,
I noticed two questionable things in the fragmentation code:
- in ip_fragment, we do not copy the flowid from the original mbuf to the
fragmented mbuf. Therefore we may output very desynchronized fragments (first
fragment emitted far later the second fragment, etc.)
- in the ip_newid
12 matches
Mail list logo
