On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
> Apply and try each patch of the attached tarball on top of 2.6.23-git
> until the behavior changes (assuming it does).
>
> Patch #000n applies on top of patch #000(n - 1).
I tested the series on top of -rc8 and 0005 did the trick. And if I use
0005
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
Apply and try each patch of the attached tarball on top of 2.6.23-git
until the behavior changes (assuming it does).
Patch #000n applies on top of patch #000(n - 1).
I tested the series on top of -rc8 and 0005 did the trick. And if I use
0005
Timo Jantunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
> Thanks for the quick reply and fix. Unfortunately the fix didn't help in my
> case.
Apply and try each patch of the attached tarball on top of 2.6.23-git
until the behavior changes (assuming it does).
Patch #000n applies on top of patch #000(n - 1).
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:52:02PM +0300, Timo Jantunen wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
> > > The patch below is scheduled for inclusion before 2.6.23. Please try it
> > > and
> > > see if it makes a difference on top of
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:52:02PM +0300, Timo Jantunen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
>
> > The patch below is scheduled for inclusion before 2.6.23. Please try it and
> > see if it makes a difference on top of 2.6.23-rc8 (full dmesg will be
> > welcome
> > too).
>
>
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
> The patch below is scheduled for inclusion before 2.6.23. Please try it and
> see if it makes a difference on top of 2.6.23-rc8 (full dmesg will be welcome
> too).
Thanks for the quick reply and fix. Unfortunately the fix didn't help in my
case.
Timo Jantunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
> Git bisect gave commit 6dccd16b7c2703e8bbf8bca62b5cf248332afbe2 as the
> culprit, and reverting it from the 2.6.23-rc8 increases send speed back to
> .22 level. (It didn't revert cleanly and the file needed some cleaning up
> by hand.)
You are
Heip!
(commit: "r8169: merge with version 6.001.00 of Realtek's r8169 driver")
In current 2.6.23-rc8 snapshot r8169 send performance is bad, around
32MB/s. In 2.6.22 it was around 83MB/s. Interestingly, the receive
performance has increased from around 85MB/s to 96MB/s at the same time!
Git
Heip!
(commit: r8169: merge with version 6.001.00 of Realtek's r8169 driver)
In current 2.6.23-rc8 snapshot r8169 send performance is bad, around
32MB/s. In 2.6.22 it was around 83MB/s. Interestingly, the receive
performance has increased from around 85MB/s to 96MB/s at the same time!
Git
Timo Jantunen [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
[...]
Git bisect gave commit 6dccd16b7c2703e8bbf8bca62b5cf248332afbe2 as the
culprit, and reverting it from the 2.6.23-rc8 increases send speed back to
.22 level. (It didn't revert cleanly and the file needed some cleaning up
by hand.)
You are welcome but
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
The patch below is scheduled for inclusion before 2.6.23. Please try it and
see if it makes a difference on top of 2.6.23-rc8 (full dmesg will be welcome
too).
Thanks for the quick reply and fix. Unfortunately the fix didn't help in my
case.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:52:02PM +0300, Timo Jantunen wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
The patch below is scheduled for inclusion before 2.6.23. Please try it and
see if it makes a difference on top of 2.6.23-rc8 (full dmesg will be
welcome
too).
Thanks for the
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:52:02PM +0300, Timo Jantunen wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
The patch below is scheduled for inclusion before 2.6.23. Please try it
and
see if it makes a difference on top of 2.6.23-rc8 (full
Timo Jantunen [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
[...]
Thanks for the quick reply and fix. Unfortunately the fix didn't help in my
case.
Apply and try each patch of the attached tarball on top of 2.6.23-git
until the behavior changes (assuming it does).
Patch #000n applies on top of patch #000(n - 1).
Good
14 matches
Mail list logo
