On PPC_8xx, CRC32_SLICEBY4 is more efficient (almost twice) than CRC32_SLICEBY8,
as shown below:
With CRC32_SLICEBY8:
[1.109204] crc32: CRC_LE_BITS = 64, CRC_BE BITS = 64
[1.114401] crc32: self tests passed, processed 225944 bytes in 15118910 nsec
[1.130655] crc32c: CRC_LE_BITS = 64
[
lib/crc32: slice by 4 is more efficient than the
default slice by 8 on Powerpc 8xx.
>
> On PPC_8xx, CRC32_SLICEBY4 is more efficient (almost twice) than
CRC32_SLICEBY8,
> as shown below:
>
> With CRC32_SLICEBY8:
> [1.109204] crc32: CRC_LE_BITS = 64, CRC_BE BITS = 64
> [1
, Bob
> Pearson ,
> > Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > Date: 2013/11/19 13:05
> > Subject: [PATCH] lib/crc32: slice by 4 is more efficient than the
> default slice by 8 on Powerpc 8xx.
> >
> > On PPC_8xx, CRC32_SLICEBY4
; To: Vitaly Bordug , Marcelo Tosatti
> > , Joakim Tjernlund ,
Bob
> > Pearson ,
> > > Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > > Date: 2013/11/19 13:05
> > > Subject: [PATCH] lib/crc32: slice by 4 is more effici
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 00:39 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote on 2013/11/19 19:29:26:
> >
> > I don't think we should go littering the Kconfig with defaults for
> > various bits of hardware -- especially since you've already pointed out
> > non-8xx hardware that would also want th
