Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*NAPI\-ized\s+tulip\s+patch\s+against\s+2\.4\.20\-rc1\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*NAPI\-ized\s+tulip\s+patch\s+against\s+2\.4\.20\-rc1\s*$/: 38 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

1. snmp (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 22:36:11 -0800; Here is a patch that makes Tulip support NAPI. The vast bulk of these changes come from Robert Olsson's ftp site, I just pieced them together. It works good on my 4-port Tulip NICs, better than the d; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00035.html (9,039 bytes)
2. 2.4.20-rc1 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 22:42:23 -0800; Ben Greear wrote: Here is a patch that makes Tulip support NAPI. The vast bulk of these Blech...I actually attached it this time... -- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com>; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00036.html (50,694 bytes)
3. 1 3 uninitialized timers during boot, ipv6 related? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:34:42 +0100; Hello! Well skb recycling is "research" and should be used to challange to vm/slab people to start with... And I guess you will get objections about the extra stats as well. I see you increased the R; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00040.html (9,744 bytes)
4. 6 related? (score: 1): Author: bert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 09:49:37 -0800; Hello! Well skb recycling is "research" and should be used to challange to vm/slab people to start with... And I guess you will get objections about the extra stats as well. The stats stuff is #ifde; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00041.html (12,279 bytes)
5. 20-rc1 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:31:09 -0500 (EST); Using 512 Rx buffers at 100Mbps seem like a pretty silly default. It's trivial for many (but not all) drivers. I've been considering doing that with my driver release. There is no longer a CPU cycle; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00042.html (10,623 bytes)
6. 20-rc1 (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 10:44:17 -0800; Donald Becker wrote: On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Ben Greear wrote: I see you increased the RX-ring to 1024 pkts. Did you really see any improvement with this? It helped drop fewer packets when running 4 port; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00043.html (11,713 bytes)
7. 20-rc1 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:47:01 +0100; I still doubt ;-) With e1000 I played with various settings for RX-buffers rather recently when the 82544 increased the number of available buffers from 256 to 4096. And I guess my test looks a bit l; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00044.html (10,746 bytes)
8. 20-rc1 (score: 1): Author: bert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:47:43 -0500 (EST); Most chips do not require bouncing the link when the interface is cycled down/up. That's not to say that some drivers don't reset the link -- it's easier for the driver writer to write the code that; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00045.html (10,616 bytes)
9. 20-rc1 (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:30:56 -0800; Robert Olsson wrote: Ben Greear writes: I still doubt ;-) With e1000 I played with various settings for RX-buffers rather recently when the 82544 increased the number of available buffers from 256 to; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00046.html (11,315 bytes)
10. cast routing (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:08:02 -0800; Here's an update of the tulip-NAPI and skb-recycle patches. I made some changes to get it to compile and work when the RECYCLE define in skbuff.h was not enabled. I also got some test runs in. Nothin; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00051.html (63,784 bytes)
11. on (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:48:49 -0500 (EST); It's ok for syncing with current kernel driver i suppose. The patch that should be considered for merging really is: http://www.cyberus.ca/~hadi/patches/tulip-2419-napi-nifd.gz which looks suspicioul; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00056.html (9,625 bytes)
12. mation (score: 1): Author: uytenh@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:57:11 -0500 (EST); cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00057.html (9,177 bytes)
13. 20-rc1 (score: 1): Author: adi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 08:24:41 -0500 (EST); Trash the machines harder. Try using smaller packets; cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00058.html (10,801 bytes)
14. proc.txt document fix of error_burst and error_cost (score: 1): Author: Oskar Andreasson <blueflux@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:16:51 -0800 (PST); They are already dropping packets, I thought I'd try to get a slower run to work cleanly before trying something faster. Precision is more important to me than absolute throughput at this point. Init; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00066.html (10,280 bytes)
15. p patch against 2.4.20-rc1 (score: 1): Author: erson(Chief)" <kennyus5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 22:26:04 +0100; If you need excessive buffering this gives latency and jitter which is considered bad for network protocols and worse for test equipment. Packet size? Expect eventual effects when there is very high; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00068.html (10,553 bytes)
16. ership (score: 1): Author: bert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:25:54 -0800; If you need excessive buffering this gives latency and jitter which is considered bad for network protocols and worse for test equipment. It depends on the goals of the test, but I agree in principl; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00069.html (11,728 bytes)
17. 20-rc1 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:29:46 -0800; Ben Greear wrote: Here's an update of the tulip-NAPI and skb-recycle patches. I made some changes to get it to compile and work when the RECYCLE define in skbuff.h was not enabled. I also got some te; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00070.html (11,367 bytes)
18. ? (score: 1): Author: t <ahu@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 06:30:53 -0500 (EST); You seem to be using that patch of yours where you route to yourself? Well, since you are up for it: - try with two ports only; eth0->eth1 and vary then vary RX ring {32, 64,128,256,512,1024} - send; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00074.html (9,635 bytes)
19. on (score: 1): Author: hu@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:40:10 -0800; jamal wrote: On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Ben Greear wrote: Any ideas for what to try next? What about upping the skb-hotlist to 1024 or so? Maybe also pre-load it with buffers to make it less likely we'll ru; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00077.html (12,645 bytes)
20. NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1 (score: 1): Author: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 22:36:11 -0800; Here is a patch that makes Tulip support NAPI. The vast bulk of these changes come from Robert Olsson's ftp site, I just pieced them together. It works good on my 4-port Tulip NICs, better than the d; /archives/netdev/2002-11/msg00253.html (8,900 bytes)

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