Hi
Last December we talked about 64 queues and IXP4XX. Karl has a patch
for them, and although I think it could be better to splitt it into
two different ones ("plain 64 queue expansion" for which I proposed a
modified patch based on Karl's, and "debugging and other things"), I
prefer Karl's to none.
What do you think of this? Which should be the best way to include it
in the main stream kernel?
Thanks
Miguel ?ngel
Miguel ?ngel ?lvarez wrote:
> Hi
>
> Last December we talked about 64 queues and IXP4XX. Karl has a patch
> for them, and although I think it could be better to splitt it into
> two different ones ("plain 64 queue expansion" for which I proposed a
> modified patch based on Karl's, and "debugging and other things"), I
> prefer Karl's to none.
>
> What do you think of this? Which should be the best way to include it
> in the main stream kernel?
>
> Thanks
>
> Miguel ?ngel
>
>
The patch needs minor rework so it applies cleanly against 2.6.29-rc2
at the moment i don't have time to do this and test it.
--
Karl
Hi
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Karl Hiramoto <[email protected]> wrote:
> Miguel ?ngel ?lvarez wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Last December we talked about 64 queues and IXP4XX. Karl has a patch
>> for them, and although I think it could be better to splitt it into
>> two different ones ("plain 64 queue expansion" for which I proposed a
>> modified patch based on Karl's, and "debugging and other things"), I
>> prefer Karl's to none.
>>
>> What do you think of this? Which should be the best way to include it
>> in the main stream kernel?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Miguel ?ngel
>>
>>
> The patch needs minor rework so it applies cleanly against 2.6.29-rc2
> at the moment i don't have time to do this and test it.
>
I do not have much problem in doing that rework myself. However I need
help in making its way into the kernel, because I have not good
experiences in that.
Miguel ?ngel
Miguel ?ngel ?lvarez <[email protected]> writes:
> Last December we talked about 64 queues and IXP4XX. Karl has a patch
> for them, and although I think it could be better to splitt it into
> two different ones ("plain 64 queue expansion" for which I proposed a
> modified patch based on Karl's, and "debugging and other things"), I
> prefer Karl's to none.
I will look at this stuff again soon, currently -ENOTIME but this
condition will only last for few days. Thanks for the reminder.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
Hi
2009/1/22 Krzysztof Halasa <[email protected]>:
> Miguel ?ngel ?lvarez <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Last December we talked about 64 queues and IXP4XX. Karl has a patch
>> for them, and although I think it could be better to splitt it into
>> two different ones ("plain 64 queue expansion" for which I proposed a
>> modified patch based on Karl's, and "debugging and other things"), I
>> prefer Karl's to none.
>
> I will look at this stuff again soon, currently -ENOTIME but this
> condition will only last for few days. Thanks for the reminder.
Sure... I was just offering my help.
Miguel ?ngel ?lvarez