Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1 | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Date | 08 Jan 2001 22:56:48 +0100 |
| |
>>>>> "David" == David S Miller <davem@redhat.com> writes:
David> I've put a patch up for testing on the kernel.org mirrors:
David> /pub/linux/kernel/people/davem/zerocopy-2.4.0-1.diff.gz
David> It provides a framework for zerocopy transmits and delayed David> receive fragment coalescing. TUX-1.01 uses this framework.
David> Zerocopy transmit requires some driver support, things run as David> they did before for drivers which do not have the support David> added. Currently sg+csum driver support has been added to David> Acenic, 3c59x, sunhme, and loopback drivers. We had eepro100 David> support coded at one point, but it was removed because we David> didn't know how to identify the cards which support hw csum David> assist vs. ones which could not.
I haven't had time to test this patch, but looking over the changes to the acenic driver I have to say that I am quite displeased with the way the changes were done. I can't comment on how authors of the other drivers which were changed feel about it. However I find it highly annoying that someone goes off and makes major cosmetic structural changes to someone elses code without even consulting the author who happens to maintain the code. It doesn't help that the patch reverts changes that should not have been reverted.
I don't think it's too much to ask that one actually tries to communicate with an author of a piece of code before making such major changes and submitting them opting for inclusion in the kernel.
Jes - 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/
| |