# Re: \[net-next resend v4 5/7\] tuntap: multiqueue support

- From: David Miller \<davem@davemloft.net\>
- Date: 2012-10-31 18:18:05 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2012/10/3949847
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2012/10/3947548/t.md

```text
From: Jason Wang <redacted>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:15:49 +0800

> @@ -110,6 +110,11 @@ struct tap_filter {
>  	unsigned char	addr[FLT_EXACT_COUNT][ETH_ALEN];
>  };
>  
> +/* 1024 is probably a high enough limit: modern hypervisors seem to support on
> + * the order of 100-200 CPUs so this leaves us some breathing space if we want
> + * to match a queue per guest CPU. */

Please don't format comments like this.  Put that final "*/" on it's
own line.

I'm really perplexed how you can get it right elsewhere in your
patches, and then botch it up only in a few select locations :-/

> +/* We try to identify a flow through its rxhash first. The reason that
> + * we do not check rxq no. is becuase some cards(e.g 82599), chooses
> + * the rxq based on the txq where the last packet of the flow comes. As
> + * the userspace application move between processors, we may get a
> + * different rxq no. here. If we could not get rxhash, then we would
> + * hope the rxq no. may help here.
> + */

For example, this one is done right.
```