On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 11:21:41PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:35:10PM +0100, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:50:50 +0100 Gerhard Roth
> > wrote:
> > > The current umb(4) implementation needs one USB transfer for every packet
> > > that is sent. With
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:35:10PM +0100, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:50:50 +0100 Gerhard Roth wrote:
> > The current umb(4) implementation needs one USB transfer for every packet
> > that is sent. With the following patch, we can now aggregate several
> > packets from the ifq int
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:50:50 +0100 Gerhard Roth wrote:
> The current umb(4) implementation needs one USB transfer for every packet
> that is sent. With the following patch, we can now aggregate several
> packets from the ifq into one single USB transfer.
>
> This may speed up the tx path. And eve
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 02:50:50PM +0100, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> The current umb(4) implementation needs one USB transfer for every packet
> that is sent. With the following patch, we can now aggregate several
> packets from the ifq into one single USB transfer.
>
> This may speed up the tx path. A
The current umb(4) implementation needs one USB transfer for every packet
that is sent. With the following patch, we can now aggregate several
packets from the ifq into one single USB transfer.
This may speed up the tx path. And even if it doesn't, at least it
reduces the number of transfers requi