lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Zerocopy implementation issues
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:17:39AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:18:43AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Occaisionally I find that sparc64 is making a gross error or invalid
> > assumption, and I accept this and fix it up.
>
> Ok, I see precisely what's going on here now, shame you didn't explain
> about these csum_add stuff in your first mail on this subject, and
> we could've saved going down this path.
>
> I'll fix up the ARM code, but its not going to be nice.

David,

Would it be acceptable to have csum_block_* in the architecture
specific code?

Firstly, architecture specific code can optimise them more
efficiently, and secondly it will prevent checksum rotations in
the architecture specific code which will only get undone by
the csum_block_* code.

Or am I missing something?

--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans