netdev - Re: [patch 0/6] s390: qeth fixes for 2.6.30

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: <49C9EA6A.90808@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:25:14 +0100
From:	Frank Blaschka <blaschka@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] s390: qeth fixes for 2.6.30


> Any particular reason you wait until right when the
> merge window opens to send me stuff?
> 
> I said on netdev that I wanted to empty my patchwork
> queue then submit the tree to Linus.
> 
> So then you send me more stuff on top of that? :-/
> 
> Please don't wait until the last moment next time.

Sorry, this was by accident. Next time I will send the patches
sooner.

> Applied.
> 
>> Frank Blaschka (2)
>> qeth: add statistics for tx csum
>> qeth: remove EDDP
> 
> Your EDDP was slow because the implementation was incredibly
> sub-optimal.  %90 of the code is doing copies and fiddling
> with SKB internals.

I did not wrote the EDDP code but this was my impression too. Thanks for
confirming my study. Also the filling of the hardware buffers was not
efficient and passing more buffers to the hw was expensive too.



--
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