From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Blaschka Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] s390: qeth fixes for 2.6.30 Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:25:14 +0100 Message-ID: <49C9EA6A.90808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090325065713.054133000@de.ibm.com> <20090325.000817.183932373.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mtagate8.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.141]:62548 "EHLO mtagate8.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750768AbZCYIZQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:25:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090325.000817.183932373.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Any particular reason you wait until right when the > merge window opens to send me stuff? > > I said on netdev that I wanted to empty my patchwork > queue then submit the tree to Linus. > > So then you send me more stuff on top of that? :-/ > > Please don't wait until the last moment next time. Sorry, this was by accident. Next time I will send the patches sooner. > Applied. > >> Frank Blaschka (2) >> qeth: add statistics for tx csum >> qeth: remove EDDP > > Your EDDP was slow because the implementation was incredibly > sub-optimal. %90 of the code is doing copies and fiddling > with SKB internals. I did not wrote the EDDP code but this was my impression too. Thanks for confirming my study. Also the filling of the hardware buffers was not efficient and passing more buffers to the hw was expensive too.