From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan_Lynch@mentor.com (Nathan Lynch) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 09:56:44 -0500 Subject: [PATCH CFT 00/30] Initial round of Freescale FEC ethernet patches In-Reply-To: <20140701143401.GT32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20140627151542.GL32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <53B2C3E8.7030903@mentor.com> <20140701143401.GT32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <53B2CC2C.7080306@mentor.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/01/2014 09:34 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 09:21:28AM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote: >> [apologies if this is a duplicate, I got a weird SMTP error from my >> organization's mail server when I tried to send this yesterday] >> >> On 06/27/2014 10:15 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> This is v2 of my initial round of patches (roughly half of my total >>> patch set) for the Freescale FEC driver. >>> >>> I'm sending this set out for comments and testing. So far, I have >>> had only one ack for one patch in this series, this is pretty poor, >>> so I'm now sending it with a CFT tag instead. >> >> FWIW I've given your fec-testing branch some testing on BD-SL-i.MX6 >> (Sabre Lite) with 3.16-rc2 (-rc1 has some issue with detecting the mmc). >> Mainly running glibc 'make check' with SSH, NFSv4, IPv4 on a gigabit >> switch. This workload wasn't exhibiting problems before your patches >> and it does not appear to be regressed by them. >> >> I wanted to test it because I've noticed hard-to-characterize sluggish >> interactive response in SSH sessions on this system. Like key echo >> takes 0.2 seconds too long... sometimes. I guess it could be anything, >> but I haven't encountered it yet with your patches. > > Thanks for testing. > > Can I add a tested-by tag for you for those patches? Of course. Tested-by: Nathan Lynch From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Lynch Subject: Re: [PATCH CFT 00/30] Initial round of Freescale FEC ethernet patches Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 09:56:44 -0500 Message-ID: <53B2CC2C.7080306@mentor.com> References: <20140627151542.GL32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <53B2C3E8.7030903@mentor.com> <20140701143401.GT32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , , , Fugang Duan To: Russell King - ARM Linux Return-path: Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:40219 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751605AbaGAO4w (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:56:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140701143401.GT32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/01/2014 09:34 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 09:21:28AM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote: >> [apologies if this is a duplicate, I got a weird SMTP error from my >> organization's mail server when I tried to send this yesterday] >> >> On 06/27/2014 10:15 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> This is v2 of my initial round of patches (roughly half of my total >>> patch set) for the Freescale FEC driver. >>> >>> I'm sending this set out for comments and testing. So far, I have >>> had only one ack for one patch in this series, this is pretty poor, >>> so I'm now sending it with a CFT tag instead. >> >> FWIW I've given your fec-testing branch some testing on BD-SL-i.MX6 >> (Sabre Lite) with 3.16-rc2 (-rc1 has some issue with detecting the mmc). >> Mainly running glibc 'make check' with SSH, NFSv4, IPv4 on a gigabit >> switch. This workload wasn't exhibiting problems before your patches >> and it does not appear to be regressed by them. >> >> I wanted to test it because I've noticed hard-to-characterize sluggish >> interactive response in SSH sessions on this system. Like key echo >> takes 0.2 seconds too long... sometimes. I guess it could be anything, >> but I haven't encountered it yet with your patches. > > Thanks for testing. > > Can I add a tested-by tag for you for those patches? Of course. Tested-by: Nathan Lynch