Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:40:37 +1100 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [UPDATE] Zerocopy patches, against 2.4.1-pre10 |
| |
"David S. Miller" wrote: > > I'm back from OZ, and to help deal with my sudden lack of Victoria > Bitter,
aww.. Poor Dave. I'll have an extra one for you.
> ... > There is one critical failure I saw reported with zerocopy, where all > transmits basically failed using a 3c59x card. This indicates that > our driver checks thought the 3c59x you had supported TX checksumming > in hardware, when in fact it does not.
I've tested the latest zc patch on:
3c905 (10b7/9050) 3c905B (10b7/9055) 3c905C (10b7/9200) 3c590 (10b7/5900)
no problems. I simply mounted an NFS server with rsize=wsize=8192 and read a few files - I assume this is sufficient?
I can test a 3c575 later today.
What I suggest we do here is to add a new flag to the per-device table `HAS_HWCKSM' and use that to set the device capabilities, rather than using the IS_CYCLONE stuff. Then we can add cards individually as confirmation comes in.
I do have a 200-line 3c59x patch banked up - it does the following:
- fixes some interface selection problems with 3c590/3c900's - fixes a PAGE_SIZE memory leak which occurs each time the driver is unloaded (pci_free_consistent needed). - fixes the 3c556B's PM-resume behaviour
So... How to coordinate these diffs? I'd propose that I implement the HAS_HWCKSM thing, test zerocopy with it on the five NICs which I have. Then what? Ask Linus to merge the non-zc parts?
- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |