[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2089960838bccf80f6fb9cc586b1a663f1f9e9da.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 08:06:10 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: dgilbert@...erlog.com, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Cc: Jeff Lien <jeff.lien@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
david.darrington@....com, jeff.furlong@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Performance Improvement in CRC16 Calculations.
On Sat, 2018-08-11 at 02:04 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-10 at 22:39 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> > but below is a copy and paste of a table 27 from draft SBC-4
> > revision 15 in chapter 4.22.4.4 on page 87.
>
> The posted code returns the proper crc for each
> CONFIG_CRYPTO_CRCT10DIF_TABLE_SIZE value from
> 1 to 5 for these arrays.
Jeff, could you please test the suggested patch
with your comparison framework again with each
CONFIG_CRYPTO_CRCT10DIF_TABLE_SIZE from 1 to 5?
I get on a very limited test framework here:
(runtime average of 10 runs)
1: 4.32
2: 1.86
3: 1.31
4: 1.05
5: 0.99
Powered by blists - more mailing lists