> They are incremental, but some of them are trivial and in the end
> it's the end result that matters but yes I could probably split some
> misc stuff, rx path, tx path, and more misc.
Hi Ben
Trivial patches are good. They are easy to review. You should be
aiming for patches which are obviously
On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 15:52 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > We're running some more testing tonight, if it's all solid I'll shoot
> > it out tomorrow or sunday. Dave, it's ok to just spam the list with a
> > 55 patches series like that ?
>
> Hi Ben
>
> Is there a good reason to spam the list with 5
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:59:27 +1100
> We're running some more testing tonight, if it's all solid I'll shoot
> it out tomorrow or sunday. Dave, it's ok to just spam the list with a
> 55 patches series like that ?
Please send about a dozen at a time, thank you. Grou
> We're running some more testing tonight, if it's all solid I'll shoot
> it out tomorrow or sunday. Dave, it's ok to just spam the list with a
> 55 patches series like that ?
Hi Ben
Is there a good reason to spam the list with 55 patches? The patches
should be incremental, so getting them review
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 20:15 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>
> > I've started re-doing the work in the form of a series of patches.
> >
> > I can't promise I'll manage to make them all really small but I'll
> > do my best. So hold onto reviewing if you haven't started already.
> >
> > The end result
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:46:18 +1100
> On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:08 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 11:08 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> > I hear your point that you are the only users of the driver and
>> > it's
>> > already in a bad
On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 08:08 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 11:08 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > I hear your point that you are the only users of the driver and
> > it's
> > already in a bad shape, but take this as an opportunity to increase
> > your commit count ;)
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 11:08 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> I hear your point that you are the only users of the driver and it's
> already in a bad shape, but take this as an opportunity to increase
> your commit count ;)
Haha, my commit count is fine thanks ;-)
I'll see what I can do. I need to
On 03/28/2017 10:18 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 22:10 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> Do you prefer that I submit it as a new driver for that IP block
>>> instead and take out the old one later ?
>>
>> You've decided to do this work in a way that makes it nearly
>> impo
Hi Benjamin,
[auto build test ERROR on net/master]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Benjamin-Herrenschmidt/ftgmac100-Mostly-rewrite-the-driver/20170329-155424
config: arm-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc (Debian 6.1.1-9) 6.1.1 20160705
reproduce:
On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 22:10 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> Do you prefer that I submit it as a new driver for that IP block
> > instead and take out the old one later ?
>
> You've decided to do this work in a way that makes it nearly
> impossible to audit the individual changes for regressions and
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:03:07 +1100
> On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 21:57 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> This is unreviewable.
>>
>> You must break this up into small, reviewable pieces.
>>
>> If you didn't save the steps of your work in that way, that isn't
>> our problem
On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 21:57 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> This is unreviewable.
>
> You must break this up into small, reviewable pieces.
>
> If you didn't save the steps of your work in that way, that isn't
> our problem.
That's not realistic, it would probably not improve the readability
much.
This is unreviewable.
You must break this up into small, reviewable pieces.
If you didn't save the steps of your work in that way, that isn't
our problem.
This is an almost complete rewrite of this driver.
The patch overall multiplies the performance of the driver
on an AST2500 eval board with a gigabit link by 3 to 4.
I get arounnd 400Mbit/s with this vs. about 80Mbit/s with the current
driver using iperf3. I've done some tests on NC-SI machines a
15 matches
Mail list logo
