Re: Zerocopy NBD

Hi, > > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Steve Whitehouse wrote: > > [info about NBD patch deleted] > > > Cool. > > Are you seeing performance improvements with the patch ? > Yes, but my testing is not in anyway complete yet. The only network device I have which is sup

Zerocopy NBD

Hi, Attached is a patch I came up with recently to do add zerocopy support to NBD for writes. I'm not intending that this should go into the kernel before at least 2.5, I'm just sending it here in case it is useful to anyone. I wrote it is a simple way to experiment with the new zerocopy code

Zerocopy NBD

Hi, Attached is a patch I came up with recently to do add zerocopy support to NBD for writes. I'm not intending that this should go into the kernel before at least 2.5, I'm just sending it here in case it is useful to anyone. I wrote it is a simple way to experiment with the new zerocopy code

Re: Zerocopy NBD

Hi, On Wed, 30 May 2001, Steve Whitehouse wrote: [info about NBD patch deleted] Cool. Are you seeing performance improvements with the patch ? Yes, but my testing is not in anyway complete yet. The only network device I have which is supported by zerocopy is loopback

NBD Fix (attempt #2)

Hi, Below is a patch which I think fixes the NBD hangs properly. It works for me and doesn't need any changes to ll_rw_blk.c like my last patch did. I've shown it to Pavel Machek who has approved it. The patch is against 2.4.2-ac18. Pavel: I've made the change you requested and also added a

NBD Fix (attempt #2)

Hi, Below is a patch which I think fixes the NBD hangs properly. It works for me and doesn't need any changes to ll_rw_blk.c like my last patch did. I've shown it to Pavel Machek who has approved it. The patch is against 2.4.2-ac18. Pavel: I've made the change you requested and also added a

Re: NBD Cleanup patch and bugfix in ll_rw_blk.c

Hi, > > > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Steve Whitehouse wrote: > > > > Here is a new version of the patch I recently sent to the list with some > > NBD cleanups and a bug fix in ll_rw_blk.c. The changes to NBD have Pavel > > Machek's approval as I've left

Re: NBD Cleanup patch and bugfix in ll_rw_blk.c

Hi, On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Steve Whitehouse wrote: Here is a new version of the patch I recently sent to the list with some NBD cleanups and a bug fix in ll_rw_blk.c. The changes to NBD have Pavel Machek's approval as I've left out the two changes as he suggested. The bug

Re: NBD Cleanup patch and bugfix in ll_rw_blk.c

Hi, Oops, sorry. Updated patch below. Jens & Russell: Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. > > On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Russell King wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 07:57:29PM +, Steve Whitehouse wrote: > > > -int nbd_init(void) > > > +int __in

NBD Cleanup patch and bugfix in ll_rw_blk.c

Hi, Here is a new version of the patch I recently sent to the list with some NBD cleanups and a bug fix in ll_rw_blk.c. The changes to NBD have Pavel Machek's approval as I've left out the two changes as he suggested. The bug fix in ll_rw_blk.c prevents hangs when using block devices which

NBD Hangs

Hi, I've been having some NBD hangs with the 2.4.2 kernel. It appears that block devices which don't use plugging will not have their request functions called when the request is queued. I propose the following patch to ll_rw_blk.c which seems to do the trick for me. Also I have done a small

NBD Hangs

Hi, I've been having some NBD hangs with the 2.4.2 kernel. It appears that block devices which don't use plugging will not have their request functions called when the request is queued. I propose the following patch to ll_rw_blk.c which seems to do the trick for me. Also I have done a small

NBD Cleanup patch and bugfix in ll_rw_blk.c

Hi, Here is a new version of the patch I recently sent to the list with some NBD cleanups and a bug fix in ll_rw_blk.c. The changes to NBD have Pavel Machek's approval as I've left out the two changes as he suggested. The bug fix in ll_rw_blk.c prevents hangs when using block devices which

Re: NBD Cleanup patch and bugfix in ll_rw_blk.c

Hi, Oops, sorry. Updated patch below. Jens Russell: Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Russell King wrote: On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 07:57:29PM +, Steve Whitehouse wrote: -int nbd_init(void) +int __init nbd_init(void) -void cleanup_module(void

Re: SO_RCVTIMEO, SO_SNDTIMEO

Hi, They are the maximum amount of time that a send or receive call will block for. The standard socket error returns apply, so if data has been sent or received, then the return value will be the amount of data transferred; if no data has been transferred and the timeout has been reached then

Re: [UPDATE] Zerocopy patches, against 2.4.1-pre10

Hi, Do you mean that devices will not be able to indicate support of SG seperately from hw checksum or that the IP zerocopy will simply ignore devices which do not have both ? DECnet assumes that the mac level checksum will detect all errors and does not have a checksum of its own on data, so

Re: [UPDATE] Zerocopy patches, against 2.4.1-pre10

Hi, Do you mean that devices will not be able to indicate support of SG seperately from hw checksum or that the IP zerocopy will simply ignore devices which do not have both ? DECnet assumes that the mac level checksum will detect all errors and does not have a checksum of its own on data, so

Re: [patch] NE2000

Hi, I have to own up and say that it was me :-) you'll see that DECnet is the only protocol to use these macros at the moment. I'm sure though that I only copied what IPv4 was doing at the time, along with the hints I had from yourself and Dave, Steve. > > Hello! > > > Alexey! Even someone

Re: [patch] NE2000

Hi, I have to own up and say that it was me :-) you'll see that DECnet is the only protocol to use these macros at the moment. I'm sure though that I only copied what IPv4 was doing at the time, along with the hints I had from yourself and Dave, Steve. Hello! Alexey! Even someone