On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 06:57:24PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 08:26 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> >
> > We shouldn't make it too complicated. We can always select different
> > settings
> > in the defconfig file. My thinking here is to better wast a little
> >
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 08:26 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
>
> We shouldn't make it too complicated. We can always select different
> settings
> in the defconfig file. My thinking here is to better wast a little
> memory
> with a potential performance improvement. Just me 0.02$
If it gets really c
On Friday 11 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 09:48 -0800, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:38:17PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 09:48 -0800, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:38:17PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > > Performance tests done by AMCC have shown t
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:38:17PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
> > > performance of the Linux EMAC driv
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:54:28 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 15:48 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > No need for a defconfig update patch. Paul or I usually do a general
> > defconfig update for most boards before the next kernel version. This
> > wi
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 15:48 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> No need for a defconfig update patch. Paul or I usually do a general
> defconfig update for most boards before the next kernel version. This
> will get picked up then.
Will it ? I think the defconfigs will stick to the old value.
Ben.
--
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:53:06 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 13:38 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > > Performance tests don
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 13:38 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
> > > performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So
On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
> > performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default
> > values to match this setup.
> >
>
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
> performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default
> values to match this setup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
Do we have t
11 matches
Mail list logo
