From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH] zerocopy NFS for 2.5.36 Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:56:21 +0200 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20020921115619.GA1000@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20020918.171431.24608688.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20020918.160057.17194839.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: taka@valinux.co.jp, neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from [195.39.17.254] (helo=Elf.ucw.cz) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17sisK-0004Yw-00 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 04:56:42 -0700 To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20020918.160057.17194839.davem@redhat.com> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi! > > 1) > ftp://ftp.valinux.co.jp/pub/people/taka/2.5.36/va10-hwchecksum-2.5.36.patch > This patch enables HW-checksum against outgoing packets including UDP frames. > > Can you explain the TCP parts? They look very wrong. > > It was discussed long ago that csum_and_copy_from_user() performs > better than plain copy_from_user() on x86. I do not remember all > details, but I do know that using copy_from_user() is not a real > improvement at least on x86 architecture. Well, if this is the case, we need to #define copy_from_user csum_and_copy_from_user :-). Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs