On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Sten Spans wrote:
em with jumboframes is borken atm.
It seems some drivers don't handle the jumboframes -
chained mbufs case quite correctly.
--
Sten Spans
Totally broken, or broken when used on non-i386 architectures?
Broken on alpha
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Sten Spans wrote:
em with jumboframes is borken atm.
It seems some drivers don't handle the jumboframes -
chained mbufs case quite correctly.
--
Sten Spans
Totally broken, or broken when used on non-i386 architectures?
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
___
Why not just fix the protocols which do unaligned accesses? Is speedup of
doing non-byte-wide reads when manipulating packet headers really larger
than the cost of aligning everything? I doubt it.
Your average tcp packet shoule only cause a few unaligned accesses anyway,
so we are putting in a
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Well, right now most (all?) drivers handle the alignment issue, so moving the
alignment step into the ethernet code would centralize it in one place, and
would not break anything. Removing the alignment requ
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Moving the alignment out of the drivers and into a common place seems like
a good idea, but I wonder if it should be done in the ethernet code
instead of in the ip code; won't other protocols have unaligned access
problems if the change is made exactly a
Mike Silbersack wrote this message on Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:48 -0600:
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> >>I'm confused - don't sparc64 and alpha have similar alignment
> >>requirements? Why does arm require code changes?
> >
> >yes, the alignment constraints for arm are the
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
I'm confused - don't sparc64 and alpha have similar alignment
requirements? Why does arm require code changes?
yes, the alignment constraints for arm are the same.. the reason I
said the above is only for arm is the epe driver (which is only on
an ARM c
Mike Silbersack wrote this message on Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:21 -0600:
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> >Ok, since you wanted to look at it more... I have a working copy of
> >making packets alignment safe for ip in p4 at as change 73150:
> >http://perforce.freebsd.org/change
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Ok, since you wanted to look at it more... I have a working copy of
making packets alignment safe for ip in p4 at as change 73150:
http://perforce.freebsd.org/changeView.cgi?CH=73150&ignore=GO%21
This currently is only for arm and I plan to now remove th
