Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:37:46 -0500 (EST) | Subject | Re: [patch v4, kernel version 3.2.1] net/ipv4/ip_gre: Ethernet multipoint GRE over IP | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Štefan Gula <steweg@ynet.sk> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:57:18 +0100
> The performance is one of the most critical thing why I have chosen to > build kernel patch in the first place instead of some user-space app. > If I used this approach, I would probably end up with patch for > OpenVPN project instead in that time. I am not telling that > openvswitch is not a good place for prototyping, but I believe that > this patch is beyond that border as it successfully run in environment > with more 98 linux-based APs, used for 4K+ users, with no issue for > more than 2 years. The performance results from Joseph Glanville even > adds value to it. So I still don't get the point, why my patch and > openvswitch cannot coexists in the kernel together and let user/admin > to choose to correct solution for him/her.
You don't even know if openvswitch could provide acceptable levels of performance, because you haven't even tried.
I'm not applying your patch. -- 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/
| |