Re: [PATCH 4/5] r8169: more alignment for the 0x8168

2007-02-28 Thread Francois Romieu
Francois Romieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : [...] The experimental r8169 patch of the day against 2.6.21-rc2 is available at: http://www.fr.zoreil.com/linux/www.fr.zoreil.com/people/francois/misc/20070228-2.6.21-rc2-r8169-test.patch (single patch) or: http://www.fr.zoreil.com/linux/kernel/2.6.x/2.6.21-

Re: [PATCH 4/5] r8169: more alignment for the 0x8168

2007-02-28 Thread Francois Romieu
Sorry for the delay, I took some time to check the history of the r8169 alignment issues. Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : [...] > This only partially helps. Many of the packets are greater than 200 > bytes so copybreak doesn't apply to them. Yes. > Can we assume anything about the alignment

Re: [PATCH 4/5] r8169: more alignment for the 0x8168

2007-02-26 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:42:27 +1000 Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Francois Romieu wrote: > > The experimental r8169 patch of the day against 2.6.21-rc1 is available at: > > http://www.fr.zoreil.com/linux/kernel/2.6.x/2.6.21-rc1/ > > Is 0006-r8169-confusion-between-hardware-and-IP-heade

Re: [PATCH 4/5] r8169: more alignment for the 0x8168

2007-02-25 Thread Philip Craig
Francois Romieu wrote: > The experimental r8169 patch of the day against 2.6.21-rc1 is available at: > http://www.fr.zoreil.com/linux/kernel/2.6.x/2.6.21-rc1/ Is 0006-r8169-confusion-between-hardware-and-IP-header-alignment.txt the only relevant patch? This only partially helps. Many of the pack

Re: [PATCH 4/5] r8169: more alignment for the 0x8168

2007-02-23 Thread Francois Romieu
Mike Isely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : [...] > Obviously I have an interest in any change here not breaking the NIC on > my system. So please let me know if/when you'd like me to test drive a > candidate fix that keeps everyone happy... The experimental r8169 patch of the day against 2.6.21-rc1 is av

Re: [PATCH 4/5] r8169: more alignment for the 0x8168

2007-02-13 Thread Philip Craig
Francois Romieu wrote: > Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > [...] >> This patch caused a drop in throughput from 178 Mbits/sec to 135 Mbits/sec >> on an Intel XScale IXP465. > > Which distribution of packet sizes ? Just using iperf with the default options, MTU 1500, forwarding between 2 PCs wi

Re: [PATCH 4/5] r8169: more alignment for the 0x8168

2007-02-13 Thread Mike Isely
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Francois Romieu wrote: > Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > [...] > > This patch caused a drop in throughput from 178 Mbits/sec to 135 Mbits/sec > > on an Intel XScale IXP465. > > Which distribution of packet sizes ? > > > It seems like there is some confusion about what t

Re: [PATCH 4/5] r8169: more alignment for the 0x8168

2007-02-13 Thread Francois Romieu
Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : [...] > This patch caused a drop in throughput from 178 Mbits/sec to 135 Mbits/sec > on an Intel XScale IXP465. Which distribution of packet sizes ? > It seems like there is some confusion about what the align parameter > here means. It was originally an offset

Re: [PATCH 4/5] r8169: more alignment for the 0x8168

2007-02-12 Thread Philip Craig
Francois Romieu wrote: > Two thirds of packets are lost because of misalignment. Users of > Asus laptop did apparently not notice it. > > Reported on Gigabyte GA-945GM-S2. > > Fix for http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7517 > > Signed-off-by: Francois Romieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- >

[PATCH 4/5] r8169: more alignment for the 0x8168

2006-12-03 Thread Francois Romieu
Two thirds of packets are lost because of misalignment. Users of Asus laptop did apparently not notice it. Reported on Gigabyte GA-945GM-S2. Fix for http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7517 Signed-off-by: Francois Romieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- drivers/net/r8169.c |4 ++-- 1 files ch