Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+NETIF_F

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+NETIF_F_LLTX\s+for\s+devices\s+2\s*$/: 52 ]

Total 52 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 14:05:32 +0200; New version of the NETIF_F_LLTX for network devices patch. This allows network drivers to set the NETIF_F_LLTX flag and then do their own locking in start_queue_xmit. This lowers locking overhead in; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00157.html (14,926 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: . Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 14:39:33 -0700; This missed the current round of merges, I'll try to get it in by the end of the week. I'm probably going to put the infrastructure patch in first, then the tg3/e1000 bits. Can you resend me the e100; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00183.html (8,455 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: Buckingham <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 07 Sep 2004 17:53:04 -0400; Are you reinventing the rules or changing them? hard_start_xmit() return codes are intepreted as follows: 0: typically means the packet was put in the ring. It is being abused by a few drivers to mea; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00185.html (9,725 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: erbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:51:52 +0200; I'm just offering the driver an additional choice . Actually when you return 1 then the kernel prints an ugly message and it is considered a bug. Here -1 is legal. For safety -1 should be only used f; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00197.html (10,263 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:07:56 +1000; 1 is legal in contexts where queueing occurs. See for example qdisc_restart(). It's only illegal here because this is the direct xmit path without queueing. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.op; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00198.html (9,930 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: erbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:24:08 +0200; I agree my sentence was misleading. Basically the distinction here is: 1 is for flow control -1 is for lock contention I think it's better to separate them because it minimizes the risk of breaking o; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00199.html (10,161 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: ptog@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: 08 Sep 2004 03:47:57 -0400; Is this an effect of your code? This is not so in existing code. Dont see how its going to break old drivers since they wont be making this kind of call anyways. In both cases it is semantically a fl; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00202.html (11,015 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:47:13 -0700; We are merely moving the sch_generic.c locking logic into the drivers. The behavior is entirely equivalent except that one level of unnecessary locking has been removed. I think his change is valid,; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00217.html (11,051 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 10 Sep 2004 09:33:35 -0400; , jamal; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00296.html (10,886 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: d S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:02:09 -0700; ok at i; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00324.html (11,182 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: a@xxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:21:16 +0200; updates; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00342.html (11,360 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: ndi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: 11 Sep 2004 16:15:32 -0400; troduce; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00351.html (12,940 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:45:35 -0700; Thanks.; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00356.html (11,388 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 05:57:30 -0400; snd_ac; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00360.html (11,675 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: 003@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 06:01:14 -0400; illy. 1; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00361.html (11,118 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:25:29 +0200; ion/fil; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00362.html (13,050 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: yaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:03:20 +0200; n/netde; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00363.html (12,540 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:16:05 -0400; d at ht; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00366.html (11,836 bytes)
19. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: 12 Sep 2004 13:34:30 -0400; e whole; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00369.html (11,500 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2 (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:06:51 -0400; ngs. Th; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00390.html (11,358 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]