On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 4:20 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> On 02/21, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > Hi Stan,
> >
> > Thank you very much for testing. I was wondering/worried that there
> > will be some churn in getting the test working on both our setups.
> > It's not unheard of I think because your n
On 02/21, Mina Almasry wrote:
> Hi Stan,
>
> Thank you very much for testing. I was wondering/worried that there
> will be some churn in getting the test working on both our setups.
> It's not unheard of I think because your ncdevmem changes had to go
> through a couple of iterations to work for o
Hi Stan,
Thank you very much for testing. I was wondering/worried that there
will be some churn in getting the test working on both our setups.
It's not unheard of I think because your ncdevmem changes had to go
through a couple of iterations to work for our slightly different
setups, but do bear
On 02/20, Mina Almasry wrote:
> Add support for devmem TX in ncdevmem.
>
> This is a combination of the ncdevmem from the devmem TCP series RFCv1
> which included the TX path, and work by Stan to include the netlink API
> and refactored on top of his generic memory_provider support.
>
> Signed-of
On 02/20, Mina Almasry wrote:
> Add support for devmem TX in ncdevmem.
>
> This is a combination of the ncdevmem from the devmem TCP series RFCv1
> which included the TX path, and work by Stan to include the netlink API
> and refactored on top of his generic memory_provider support.
>
> Signed-of
Add support for devmem TX in ncdevmem.
This is a combination of the ncdevmem from the devmem TCP series RFCv1
which included the TX path, and work by Stan to include the netlink API
and refactored on top of his generic memory_provider support.
Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry
Signed-off-by: Stanislav
