On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:47:41AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The inline and not inline performance is quite similar. I guess the
> > little difference here and there is due to some random ctx switches (I
>
> Are you sure you were not just IO bound? It would have been better
> to test in memory
> The inline and not inline performance is quite similar. I guess the
> little difference here and there is due to some random ctx switches (I
Are you sure you were not just IO bound? It would have been better
to test in memory (e.g. using ramfs or just some direct test client)
-Andi
-
To unsubsc
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 01:09:37AM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>
> Long story short, according to this numbers I'm all for the not inline
> version.
Thanks for following this through!
> diff --git a/crypto/tcrypt.c b/crypto/tcrypt.c
> index 1ab8c01..a935abc 100644
> --- a/crypto/tcrypt.c
> +
There is almost no difference between 32 & 64 bit glue code.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Siewior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Herbert, I wasn't able to compile / function test on 64bit but this
patch looks somehow trivial :)
arch/x86/crypto/Makefile |4 +-
arch/x86/crypto/two
* Andi Kleen | 2008-01-10 16:46:50 [+0100]:
>On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:35:29PM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>> * Herbert Xu | 2008-01-10 20:27:46 [+1100]:
>>
>> >On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Then I don't think the patch should have been applied.
>> >
