On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 01:30:54AM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:42:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Patch is at
> >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8
On 11/16/2010 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:42:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>>
>>> Patch is at
>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8_fpu.1.patch
I did some more tests post commit today using the aesni kl
Not sure if this is the kind of testing you were looking for; but I've
run both mprime and boinc/setiathome for the last two days without any
problem...
It's not a notebook so I can't test suspend/resume..
On 10-11-15 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> Hello,
> this is a call for testers of the me
On 11/17/2010 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
> Meantime, the similar change may be beneficial for padlock(4) too.
> f you are going to test it, please note that most likely, openssl padlock
> engine does not use padlock(4), I do not know for sure.
I did some more tests since someone said the
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:18:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > Meantime, the similar change may be beneficial for padlock(4) too.
> > f you are going to test it, please note that most likely, openssl padlock
> > engine does not use padlock(4), I do
On 11/17/2010 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> Meantime, the similar change may be beneficial for padlock(4) too.
> f you are going to test it, please note that most likely, openssl padlock
> engine does not use padlock(4), I do not know for sure.
>
> diff --git a/sys/crypto/via/padlock.c b/sys/
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:46:23PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 5:19 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > Would your conclusion be that the patch seems to increase the throughput
> > of the aesni(4) ?
> >
> > I think that on small-sized blocks, when using aesni(4), the dominating
> > factor
On 11/16/2010 5:19 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> Would your conclusion be that the patch seems to increase the throughput
> of the aesni(4) ?
>
> I think that on small-sized blocks, when using aesni(4), the dominating
> factor is the copying/copyout of the data to/from the kernel address
> space. S
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:08:30PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:42:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Patch is at
> >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8
On 11/16/2010 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:42:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>>
>>> Patch is at
>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8_fpu.1.patch
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> One small failure on the patch
>>
>> Th
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:42:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >
> > Patch is at
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8_fpu.1.patch
>
>
> Hi,
> One small failure on the patch
>
> The text leading up to this was:
> -
On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
> Patch is at
> http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8_fpu.1.patch
Hi,
One small failure on the patch
The text leading up to this was:
--
|Index: pc98/include/npx.h
|===
12 matches
Mail list logo