On Sun, 10 Aug 2014, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Le 10/08/2014 20:23, Dexuan Cui a écrit :
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org]
> >
> > IMO the most feasible and need-the-least-change solution may be:
> > the hyperv network VSC driver
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014, Florian Fainelli wrote:
Le 10/08/2014 20:23, Dexuan Cui a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org]
IMO the most feasible and need-the-least-change solution may be:
the hyperv network VSC driver passes the event
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 13:53 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Cc'ing kvm folks as they may have a shared interest on the shared
> > physical case with the bridge (non NAT).
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Ian Campbell
> > wrote:
> > > On
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 13:53 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Cc'ing kvm folks as they may have a shared interest on the shared
physical case with the bridge (non NAT).
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Ian Campbell ian.campb...@citrix.com
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Marek Belisko wrote:
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown
> Signed-off-by: Marek Belisko
> ---
> Based on Neil's patch and extend for documentation and bindings include.
>
> .../bindings/net/rfkill/rfkill-relugator.txt | 28
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Marek Belisko wrote:
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown ne...@suse.de
Signed-off-by: Marek Belisko ma...@goldelico.com
---
Based on Neil's patch and extend for documentation and bindings include.
.../bindings/net/rfkill/rfkill-relugator.txt | 28
Hi Bruce,
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Bruce Allen wrote:
> > I see similar results on my test systems
>
> Thanks for this report and for confirming our observations. Could you
> please confirm that a single-port bidrectional UDP link runs at wire
> speed? This helps to localize the problem to the
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, SANGTAE HA wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 5:25 PM, Bruce Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In our application (cluster computing) we use a very tightly coupled
> > high-speed low-latency network. There is no 'wide area traffic'. So it's
> > hard for me to understand why
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, SANGTAE HA wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 5:25 PM, Bruce Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In our application (cluster computing) we use a very tightly coupled
high-speed low-latency network. There is no 'wide area traffic'. So it's
hard for me to understand why any
Hi Bruce,
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Bruce Allen wrote:
I see similar results on my test systems
Thanks for this report and for confirming our observations. Could you
please confirm that a single-port bidrectional UDP link runs at wire
speed? This helps to localize the problem to the TCP
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:39:26 -0500
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000. So people's
> > > machiens
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:39:26 -0500
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make E1000E default to the same kconfig setting as E1000. So people's
machiens don't stop working
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > Is there a reason that the target hardware address isn't the target
> > hardware address?
>
> It is bound only to the fact that linux uses protocol address
> of the machine, which responds. It would be highly confusing
> (more than
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
Hello!
Is there a reason that the target hardware address isn't the target
hardware address?
It is bound only to the fact that linux uses protocol address
of the machine, which responds. It would be highly confusing
(more than confusing
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Jonas Danielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:30:11 +0100
>
> > 2007/11/16, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > From: "Jonas Danielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:40:13 +0100
> > >
> > > > Is
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Jonas Danielsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:30:11 +0100
2007/11/16, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: Jonas Danielsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:40:13 +0100
Is there a reason that the target
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> There are various agencies/educational institutions doing testing but was
> curious if anyone has 'found' a 10 gigabit card shootout measuring the
> performance between 10 gigabit cards on the 2.6 kernel? Most of the
> benchmarks are from the vendors
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote:
There are various agencies/educational institutions doing testing but was
curious if anyone has 'found' a 10 gigabit card shootout measuring the
performance between 10 gigabit cards on the 2.6 kernel? Most of the
benchmarks are from the vendors
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> (C)
> $ cat tp3.c
> int a;
>
> void func(void)
> {
> *(volatile int *) = 10;
> *(volatile int *) = 20;
> }
> $ gcc -Os -S tp3.c
> $ cat tp3.s
> ...
> movl$10, a
> movl$20, a
> ...
I'm curious about one minor tangential point. Why,
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
(C)
$ cat tp3.c
int a;
void func(void)
{
*(volatile int *)a = 10;
*(volatile int *)a = 20;
}
$ gcc -Os -S tp3.c
$ cat tp3.s
...
movl$10, a
movl$20, a
...
I'm curious about one minor tangential point. Why, instead of:
On Thu, 03 May 2007, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> | An advantage of changing the names is that they are now prefixed.
> >>
> >> Is the opportunity to clean up module names compelling enough, vs. (the
> >> wish for) minimized trouble with scripts which refer to module names?
On Thu, 03 May 2007, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
| An advantage of changing the names is that they are now prefixed.
Is the opportunity to clean up module names compelling enough, vs. (the
wish for) minimized trouble with scripts which refer to module names?
...
22 matches
Mail list logo
