[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000

To: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000
From: todd-lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 08:41:25 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, "tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tcw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, patricia gilfeather <pfeather@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1031839883.2994.84.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

good to know.  it's a nice piece of engineering.  it's useful to note that 
linux has such a long and rich history of breaking de-facto standards in 
order to make things work better.


On 12 Sep 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 14:57, Todd Underwood wrote:
> > thanks.  although i'd love to take credit, i don't think that the 
> > reverse-order fragmentation appreciation is all that original:  who 
> > wouldn't want their data sctructure size determined up-front? :-) (not to 
> > mention getting header-overwriting for-free as part of the single copy.
> As far as I am aware it was original when Linux first did it (and we
> broke cisco pix, some boot proms, some sco in the process). Credit goes
> to Arnt Gulbrandsen probably better known nowdays for his work on Qt

todd underwood, vp & cto
oso grande technologies, inc.

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>