From 02a2fcd749ee66a9d706b5f472e7263ea7197c51 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hannes Mehnert Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:04:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] . --- Posts/ARP | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Posts/ARP b/Posts/ARP index 6de5bfc..df86530 100644 --- a/Posts/ARP +++ b/Posts/ARP @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ Correctness aside, the performance should be in the same ballpark. I am mainly I ran each benchmark 3 times on a single core (used `cpuset -l 3` to pin it to one specific core) and picked the best set of results. The measure is number of packets processed over 5 seconds, using the Mirage ARP API. The full source code is in the `bench` subdirectory. As always, take benchmarks with a grain of salt: everybody will always find the right parameters for their microbenchmarks. -There was even a bug in the MirageOS ARP code: [its definition of gratitous ARP is wrong](https://github.com/mirage/mirage-tcpip/issues/225). +There was even a bug in the MirageOS ARP code: [its definition of gratuitous ARP is wrong](https://github.com/mirage/mirage-tcpip/issues/225). I'm interested in feedback, either via [twitter](https://twitter.com/h4nnes) or as an issue on the [data repository on