On 11/19/14 22:34, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 11/19/14 21:46, K. Macy wrote:
Hi Hans,
It mostly looks fine, but it's a large change and there are some
places in the patch where it isn't clear that the right thing is being
done by looking at the patch alone. Please give us some time to
Hi,
I need a little more time to review this. Sorry :(
-a
On 27 November 2014 at 09:10, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 11/19/14 22:34, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 11/19/14 21:46, K. Macy wrote:
Hi Hans,
It mostly looks fine, but it's a large change and there are some
On 11/27/14 18:13, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi,
I need a little more time to review this. Sorry :(
Hi,
How much approximately? One day, half a week or more?
Thank you for spending time on this!
--HPS
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
Erk - SCTP folk - are you using the mbuf flowid field for something
SCTP specific?
-adrian
On 27 November 2014 at 09:13, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi,
I need a little more time to review this. Sorry :(
-a
On 27 November 2014 at 09:10, Hans Petter Selasky
On 27 November 2014 at 09:18, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Erk - SCTP folk - are you using the mbuf flowid field for something
SCTP specific?
erk - yes, you are.
It seems we're going to run into what exactly should flowid be used
for problems.
Grr.
-adrian
On 11/27/14 18:20, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 27 November 2014 at 09:18, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Erk - SCTP folk - are you using the mbuf flowid field for something
SCTP specific?
erk - yes, you are.
It seems we're going to run into what exactly should flowid be used
for problems.
On 27 November 2014 at 09:25, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 11/27/14 18:20, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 27 November 2014 at 09:18, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Erk - SCTP folk - are you using the mbuf flowid field for something
SCTP specific?
erk - yes, you are.
It
On 11/27/14 18:33, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 27 November 2014 at 09:25, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 11/27/14 18:20, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 27 November 2014 at 09:18, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Erk - SCTP folk - are you using the mbuf flowid field for something
Hm, how are we going to have the RSS stuff work at the same time as
the hardware flow steering stuff you're prototyping?
-adrian
On 19 November 2014 11:02, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
Hi,
The M_FLOWID flag is marked as deprecated in the FreeBSD kernel code and the
patch
On 11/19/14 20:23, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hm, how are we going to have the RSS stuff work at the same time as
the hardware flow steering stuff you're prototyping?
Hi Adrain,
RSS is only the receive side and its functionality is not touched. I'm
just re-using the RSS fields for the transmit
On 19 Nov 2014, at 20:02, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
Hi,
The M_FLOWID flag is marked as deprecated in the FreeBSD kernel code and the
patch below completely removes it. I suggest we will now be using the
m_pkthdr.rsstype also known as M_HASHTYPE to decide if the flowid
The RSS hash is also used for:
* TCP timers,
* UDP transmit, and
* the transmit path in RSS aware drivers (igb / ixgbe)
-adrian
On 19 November 2014 11:25, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 11/19/14 20:23, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hm, how are we going to have the RSS stuff work at
On 11/19/14 20:32, Adrian Chadd wrote:
The RSS hash is also used for:
* TCP timers,
* UDP transmit, and
* the transmit path in RSS aware drivers (igb / ixgbe)
I know, and the RSS flowid values are still preserved as before in the
receive path. It is just about how you tell the upper/lower
Hi Hans,
It mostly looks fine, but it's a large change and there are some
places in the patch where it isn't clear that the right thing is being
done by looking at the patch alone. Please give us some time to
review.
Thanks.
-K
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
On 11/19/14 21:46, K. Macy wrote:
Hi Hans,
It mostly looks fine, but it's a large change and there are some
places in the patch where it isn't clear that the right thing is being
done by looking at the patch alone. Please give us some time to
review.
No problem. Do you think you need more
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 11/19/14 21:46, K. Macy wrote:
Hi Hans,
It mostly looks fine, but it's a large change and there are some
places in the patch where it isn't clear that the right thing is being
done by looking at the patch alone.
16 matches
Mail list logo
