From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] network splice receive v3 Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:21:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20070713122058.GL5328@kernel.dk> References: <20070711091927.GQ4587@kernel.dk> <20070712170247.GA18469@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, olaf.kirch@oracle.com To: Evgeniy Polyakov Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([80.160.20.94]:25284 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755996AbXGMMVP (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:21:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070712170247.GA18469@2ka.mipt.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 12 2007, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:19:27AM +0200, Jens Axboe (jens.axboe@oracle.com) wrote: > > Hi, > > Hi Jens. > > > Here's an updated implementation of tcp network splice receive support. > > It actually works for me now, no data corruption seen. > > > > For the original announcement and how to test it, see: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=118103093400770&w=2 > > > > The splice core changes needed to support this are now merged in > > 2.6.22-git, so the patchset shrinks to just two patches - one for adding > > a release hook, and one for the networking changes. > > > > The code is also available in the splice-net branch here: > > > > git://git.kernel.dk/data/git/linux-2.6-block.git splice-net > > > > There's a third experimental patch in there that allows vmsplice > > directly to user memory, that still needs some work though. > > > > Comments, testing welcome! > > It looks like you included all bits we found in the previous runs, so > likely it will work good, but so far I have conflicts merging todays git > and your tree in include/linux/splice.h, fs/ext2/file.c, fs/splice.c and > mm/filemap_xip.c. This can be a problem with my tree though. Hmm, the patch should apply directly to the tree as of when I posted this original mail, or any later one. I just tried a rebase, and it rebased fine on top of the current -git as well. So I think the issue is with your tree, sorry! > It really looks like the last tree we tested, so if you think additional > one will not hurt, feel free to ping, so I will completely rebase > testing tree. It would be great if you could retest! There are some minor changes in there, and some extra testing definitely will not hurt. -- Jens Axboe