> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 14:26:34 +0200 > From: Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 04:38:45PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote: > > > > > On 1 Aug 2016, at 21:07, Simon Mages <mages.si...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I sent this message to dlg@ directly to discuss my modification of his > > > diff to make the > > > bigger mbuf clusters work. i got no response so far, thats why i > > > decided to post it on tech@ > > > directly. Maybe this way i get faster some feedback :) > > > > hey simon, > > > > i was travelling when you sent your mail to me and then it fell out of my > > head. sorry about that. > > > > if this is working correctly then i would like to put it in the tree. from > > the light testing i have done, it is working correctly. would anyone object? > > > > some performance measurement would also be interesting :) > > > > I would prefer we take the diff I started at n2k16. I need to dig it out > though.
I think the subject of the thread has become misleading. At least the diff I think David and Simon are talking about is about using the larger mbuf pools for socket buffers and no longer about using memory >4G for them. David, Simon, best to start all over again, and repost the diff with a proper subject and explanation. You shouldn't be forcing other developers to read through several pages of private conversations.
