On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:56:10 -0800 Jim Kukunas <james.t.kuku...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:50:25PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > > On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 12:39:05 +0100 "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > > > > > Sorry, we cannot share those at this time since the hardwarenis not yet > > > released. > > > > Can I take that to imply "Acked-by: "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com>" ?? > > > > It would be nice to have at least a statement like: > > These patches have been tested both with the user-space testing tool and > > in > > a RAID6 md array and the pass all test. While we cannot release > > performance > > numbers as the hardwere is not released, we can confirm that on that > > hardware > > the performance with these patches is faster than without. > > > > I guess I should be able to assume that - surely the patches would not be > > posted if it were not true... But I like to avoid assuming when I can. > > Hi Neil, > > That assumption is correct. The patch was tested and benchmarked before > submission. Thanks. I've queued the patch up. > > You'll notice that this code is very similar to the SSSE3-optimized > recovery routines I wrote earlier. This implementation extends that same > algorithm from 128-bit registers to 256-bit registers. I might notice that if I actually looked, but it all starts swimming before my eyes when I try :-) If both you and hpa like it, then that is good enough for me. Thanks, NeilBrown > > Thanks. >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
