On 2017/5/26 3:49, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Ding Tianhong
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2017/5/9 8:48, Casey Leedom wrote:
>>>
>>> | From: Alexander Duyck
>>> | Date: Saturday, May 6, 2017 11:07 AM
>>> |
>>> | | From: Ding Tianhong
>>> | | Date: Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:08 P
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>
> On 2017/5/9 8:48, Casey Leedom wrote:
>>
>> | From: Alexander Duyck
>> | Date: Saturday, May 6, 2017 11:07 AM
>> |
>> | | From: Ding Tianhong
>> | | Date: Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:08 PM
>> | |
>> | | According the suggestion, I could only th
On 2017/5/9 8:48, Casey Leedom wrote:
>
> | From: Alexander Duyck
> | Date: Saturday, May 6, 2017 11:07 AM
> |
> | | From: Ding Tianhong
> | | Date: Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:08 PM
> | |
> | | According the suggestion, I could only think of this code:
> | | ..
> |
> | This is a bit simplistic bu
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Casey Leedom wrote:
> | From: Ding Tianhong
> | Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 6:15 PM
> |
> | Hi Casey:
> |
> | Will you continue to work on this solution or send a new version patches?
>
> I won't be able to work on this any time soon given several other urgent
| From: Ding Tianhong
| Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 6:15 PM
|
| Hi Casey:
|
| Will you continue to work on this solution or send a new version patches?
I won't be able to work on this any time soon given several other urgent
issues. If you've got a desire to pick this up, I'd be happy to help
On 2017/5/9 8:48, Casey Leedom wrote:
>
> | From: Alexander Duyck
> | Date: Saturday, May 6, 2017 11:07 AM
> |
> | | From: Ding Tianhong
> | | Date: Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:08 PM
> | |
> | | According the suggestion, I could only think of this code:
> | | ..
> |
> | This is a bit simplistic b
| From: Alexander Duyck
| Date: Saturday, May 6, 2017 11:07 AM
|
| | From: Ding Tianhong
| | Date: Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:08 PM
| |
| | According the suggestion, I could only think of this code:
| | ..
|
| This is a bit simplistic but it is a start.
Yes, something tells me that this is goin
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>
>
> On 2017/5/7 2:07, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Ding Tianhong
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017/5/5 22:04, Alexander Duyck wrote:
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Casey Leedom wrote:
> | From: Alexander D
On 2017/5/7 2:07, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017/5/5 22:04, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Casey Leedom wrote:
| From: Alexander Duyck
| Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 9:02 AM
| ...
|
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>
>
> On 2017/5/5 22:04, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Casey Leedom wrote:
>>> | From: Alexander Duyck
>>> | Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 9:02 AM
>>> | ...
>>> | It sounds like we are more or less in agreement. My o
On 2017/5/5 22:04, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Casey Leedom wrote:
>> | From: Alexander Duyck
>> | Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 9:02 AM
>> | ...
>> | It sounds like we are more or less in agreement. My only concern is
>> | really what we default this to. On x86 I wo
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Casey Leedom wrote:
> | From: Alexander Duyck
> | Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 9:02 AM
> | ...
> | It sounds like we are more or less in agreement. My only concern is
> | really what we default this to. On x86 I would say we could probably
> | default this to disab
| From: Alexander Duyck
| Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 9:02 AM
| ...
| It sounds like we are more or less in agreement. My only concern is
| really what we default this to. On x86 I would say we could probably
| default this to disabled for existing platforms since my understanding
| is that relax
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Casey Leedom wrote:
> | From: Alexander Duyck
> | Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 11:10 AM
> | ...
> | So for example, in the case of x86 it seems like there are multiple
> | root complexes that have issues, and the gains for enabling it with
> | standard DMA to host me
| From: Alexander Duyck
| Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 11:10 AM
| ...
| So for example, in the case of x86 it seems like there are multiple
| root complexes that have issues, and the gains for enabling it with
| standard DMA to host memory are small. As such we may want to default
| it to off via th
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:10:22AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Raj, Ashok wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:39:34AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> >> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Casey Leedom wrot
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:10:22AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:39:34AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Casey Leedom wrote:
> >> > The new flag PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:39:34AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Casey Leedom wrote:
>> > The new flag PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING indicates that the Relaxed
>> > Ordering Attribute should not be used on
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:39:34AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Casey Leedom wrote:
> > The new flag PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING indicates that the Relaxed
> > Ordering Attribute should not be used on Transaction Layer Packets destined
> > for the PCIe End
Hi Casey
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 04:13:50PM -0700, Casey Leedom wrote:
> The new flag PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING indicates that the Relaxed
> Ordering Attribute should not be used on Transaction Layer Packets destined
> for the PCIe End Node so flagged. Initially flagged this way are Inte
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Casey Leedom wrote:
> The new flag PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING indicates that the Relaxed
> Ordering Attribute should not be used on Transaction Layer Packets destined
> for the PCIe End Node so flagged. Initially flagged this way are Intel
> E5-26xx Root Com
hi, Casey:
On 2017/5/2 7:13, Casey Leedom wrote:
> The new flag PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING indicates that the Relaxed
> Ordering Attribute should not be used on Transaction Layer Packets destined
> for the PCIe End Node so flagged. Initially flagged this way are Intel
> E5-26xx Root Comple
The new flag PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING indicates that the Relaxed
Ordering Attribute should not be used on Transaction Layer Packets destined
for the PCIe End Node so flagged. Initially flagged this way are Intel
E5-26xx Root Complex Ports which suffer from a Flow Control Credit
Performanc
23 matches
Mail list logo
