On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:28:13 -0600
Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:

quoted text
> I noticed this when looking at an openswan issue. Openswan (ab?)uses
> the tasklet API to defer processing of packets in some situations,
> with one packet per tasklet_action(). I started noticing sequences of
> reverse-ordered sequence numbers coming over the wire, since new tasklets
> are always queued at the head of the list but processed sequentially.
> 
> Convert it to instead append new entries to the tail of the list. As an
> extra bonus, the splicing code in takeover_tasklets() no longer has to
> iterate over the list.
> 

hm, I'd have thought that this would already have caused problems in
networking.  And perhaps this change might have effects on networking too?

Probably it won't have _much_ effect on networking because networking
probably isn't queueing one tasklet per packet(!) but perhaps with bonded
channels or something like that?

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/