> On Jan 2, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/02/2017 07:36 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>>
>> Right, this is why I’m trying to create a new target (or subtarget) called
>> “xeon” which is optimized for Xeon targets and leverages the on-chip
>> crypto-accelerators.
>
> On Jan 2, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On 2017-01-02, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
The x86/64/config-default is missing the following switches:
CONFIG_MCORE2=y
> [...]
>> R
On 2017-01-03 00:41, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> And I’d like to do that.
>
> (a) we’d need to decide what benchmarks are meaningful… are the openssl
> encryption benchmarks sufficient?
I think it's a good start. However, please make sure you have the same
encryption acceleration drivers enabled
> On Jan 2, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>
> On 2017-01-02 19:36, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> Right, this is why I’m trying to create a new target (or subtarget)
>> called “xeon” which is optimized for Xeon targets and leverages the
>> on-chip crypto-accelerators.
>>
>> We’ve come a
On 2017-01-02 19:36, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Right, this is why I’m trying to create a new target (or subtarget)
> called “xeon” which is optimized for Xeon targets and leverages the
> on-chip crypto-accelerators.
>
> We’ve come a long way since the Athalon-64 (k8) in 2004.
I think it should b
On 01/02/2017 07:36 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
> Right, this is why I’m trying to create a new target (or subtarget) called
> “xeon” which is optimized for Xeon targets and leverages the on-chip
> crypto-accelerators.
>
> We’ve come a long way since the Athalon-64 (k8) in 2004.
>
> -Phil
Hi
On 2017-01-02, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> The x86/64/config-default is missing the following switches:
> >>
> >> CONFIG_MCORE2=y
[...]
> Right, this is why I’m trying to create a new target (or subtarget) called
> On Dec 31, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Philip Prindeville
> wrote:
>
> There’s a test for “ifeq ($(ARCH),i386) … endif” but I don’t see code for
> x86_64. Do we need something like:
>
> diff --git a/include/target.mk b/include/target.mk
> index 8211ba0..5e3aae6 100644
> --- a/include/target.mk
> +++
> On Jan 2, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> The x86/64/config-default is missing the following switches:
>>
>> CONFIG_MCORE2=y
>
> That would break support for older x86_64 iirc.
>
>> CONFIG_MDIO=y
>> CONFIG_X86_USE_PPRO_CHECKSUM=y
>
> Those can probably go into x86/6
> On Jan 2, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>
>> Why not instead just add a profile attribute like:
>>
>> BUILDBOT_BUILD_ME:=no
>
> Because we want to have complete coverage. Experience has shown that
> untested subtargets quickly become stale and broken.
>
> ~ Jo
Then we need mor
Hi,
> If this is going to be the road we travel down (I'm bikeshedding here)
> wouldn't a BUILDBOT_INTERVAL:=daily/3d/7d/14d make more sense?
it wouldn't as buildbot activity is distributed randomly and the master
currently lacks suitable scheduling logic to implement such behavior.
Besides tha
Hi,
> Pruning useful subtargets to solve a buildbot resource shortage seems
> like taking a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
Saving resources was only one of the considerations to cut back the
amount of sub targets.
The introduction of per-device/per-profile rootfs support in LEDE
allowed us to build
Hi,
> The x86/64/config-default is missing the following switches:
>
> CONFIG_MCORE2=y
That would break support for older x86_64 iirc.
> CONFIG_MDIO=y
> CONFIG_X86_USE_PPRO_CHECKSUM=y
Those can probably go into x86/64 directly, at least I see no reason why
not.
> [...]
> ARCH_SUFFIX is taken
> On Jan 1, 2017, at 8:34 AM, Weedy wrote:
>
> On 31 December 2016 at 20:23, Philip Prindeville
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Pruning useful subtargets to solve a buildbot resource shortage seems like
>> taking a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
>>
>> Why not instead just add a profile attribute like:
>>
>
On 31 December 2016 at 20:23, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
>
>> On Dec 31, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
>>
>> On 31 December 2016 at 06:13, Philip Prindeville
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed that in Openwrt a lot of the x86 subtargets (alix, geos, net5501)
>>> had gone away (well, been combin
> On Dec 31, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
>
> On 31 December 2016 at 06:13, Philip Prindeville
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 December 2016 at 03:29, Philip Prindeville
>>> wrote:
On Dec 28, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
On 31 December 2016 at 06:13, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
>
>> On Dec 29, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
>>
>> On 30 December 2016 at 03:29, Philip Prindeville
>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
>>>
>>> The x86/64/config-default is missing the following switches
> On Dec 29, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
>
> On 30 December 2016 at 03:29, Philip Prindeville
> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
>>
>> The x86/64/config-default is missing the following switches:
>>
>> CONFIG_MCORE2=y
>> CONFIG_MDIO=y
>> CONFIG_X86_USE_PPR
On 30 December 2016 at 03:29, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
>>
>> On 29 December 2016 at 10:04, Philip Prindeville
>> wrote:
>>> I wanted to add a new target for x86, or possibly several.
>>>
>>> I have an immediate need for an optimized build to ru
On Dec 28, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
>
> On 29 December 2016 at 10:04, Philip Prindeville
> wrote:
>> I wanted to add a new target for x86, or possibly several.
>>
>> I have an immediate need for an optimized build to run on Xeon-based 1U
>> servers for a project that I’m working o
On 29 December 2016 at 10:04, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
> I wanted to add a new target for x86, or possibly several.
>
> I have an immediate need for an optimized build to run on Xeon-based 1U
> servers for a project that I’m working on. My work in progress is here:
>
> https://github.com/pprind
I wanted to add a new target for x86, or possibly several.
I have an immediate need for an optimized build to run on Xeon-based 1U servers
for a project that I’m working on. My work in progress is here:
https://github.com/pprindeville/openwrt/commit/67a11380ed69351e320a410ec18c04e62fb548d3
but
22 matches
Mail list logo
