netdev - Re: [PATCH] Intel IXP4xx network drivers v.3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070508125921.GA32669@xi.wantstofly.org>
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2007 14:59:21 +0200
From:	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
To:	Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>
Cc:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
	Michael-Luke Jones <mlj28@....ac.uk>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	ARM Linux Mailing List 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel IXP4xx network drivers v.3 - QMGR

On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:47:31PM +0400, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:

> > As with Christian's driver, I don't know whether an SRAM allocator
> > makes much sense.  We can just set up a static allocation map for the
> > in-tree drivers and leave out the allocator altogether.  I.e. I don't
> > think it's worth the complexity (and just because the butt-ugly Intel
> > code has an allocator isn't a very good reason. :-)
> 
> Is the qmgr used when the NPEs are utilized as DMA engines?

I'm not sure, but probably yes.


> And is the allocator needed in this case?

If you statically partition the available queue SRAM, no.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html