netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] lan743x speed boost

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]

Date:   Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:15:07 +0000
From:   <Bryan.Whitehead@...rochip.com>
To:     <thesven73@...il.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <andrew@...n.ch>, <rtgbnm@...il.com>, <sbauer@...ckbox.su>,
        <tharvey@...eworks.com>, <anders@...ningen.priv.no>,
        <hdanton@...a.com>, <hch@....de>,
        <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] lan743x speed boost

Hi Sven, see below
 
> - Bryan Whitehead:
>     + multi-buffer patch concept "looks good".
>       As a result, I will squash the intermediate "dma buffer only" patch which
>       demonstrated the speed boost using an inflexible solution
>       (w/o multi-buffers).
>     + Rename lan743x_rx_process_buffer() to lan743x_rx_process_packet()
You meant "Rename lan743x_rx_process_packet() to lan743x_rx_process_buffer()"

>     + Remove unused RX_PROCESS_RESULT_PACKET_DROPPED
>     + Rename RX_PROCESS_RESULT_BUFFER_RECEIVED to
>       RX_PROCESS_RESULT_PACKET_RECEIVED
You meant "Rename RX_PROCESS_RESULT_PACKET_RECEIVED to RX_PROCESS_RESULT_BUFFER_RECEIVED"

I don't think you need a new version for just these typos, because the patch is correct. But if you do a new version then you can change it.

Regards,
Bryan