On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:53:36PM -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
quoted text
> @@ -6223,9 +6257,10 @@ static int bnx2x_init_common(struct bnx2x *bp)
>  	bnx2x_init_block(bp, PBF_BLOCK, COMMON_STAGE);
> 
>  	REG_WR(bp, SRC_REG_SOFT_RST, 1);
> -	for (i = SRC_REG_KEYRSS0_0; i <= SRC_REG_KEYRSS1_9; i += 4) {
> -		REG_WR(bp, i, 0xc0cac01a);
> -		/* TODO: replace with something meaningful */
> +	{
> +		int i;
> +		for (i = SRC_REG_KEYRSS0_0; i <= SRC_REG_KEYRSS1_9; i += 4)
> +			REG_WR(bp, i, random32());
>  	}
>  	bnx2x_init_block(bp, SRCH_BLOCK, COMMON_STAGE);
>  #ifdef BCM_CNIC

Is a random hash key really better than arbitrary static values?  
Setting the hash key to random values means, from chip reset to chip
reset, you could get different performance results.  Unless we
we understood how the key affects performance, I would think that
reproducable performance numbers would be more desirable, no?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html