Hi Kevin, On 2014-09-16 11:25:12 -0700, Kevin Greenan wrote: > > I feel that separating the arch-specific implementations out and have a > default 'generic' implementation would be a huge improvement. Note that > gf-complete was in active development for some time before including the > SIMD code. In hindsight, we should have done this separation back in 2012, > but had some time pressure due to a paper deadline and limited time > available to the contributors. > > Also, I agree w.r.t. the preprocessor stuff. Going with SIMD/NOSIMD is > fine by me. I'll rename than and start implementing neon optimized function in their own files. > Also, there should be very little "SIMD" work with jerasure, as gf-complete > is the Galois field backend, so I would not worry too much about that. I noticed, I have hooked my neon code already locally in ceph with touching jerasure. > That covers "clean-up" work. We can discuss the best way to choose the > underlying implementation (looks like we have a bunch of options) as this > work is completed. > > With this in mind, what work were you planning to do? I can try to free up > cycles to help, but that may not happen for a few weeks. Primarily NEON optimisations for gf-complete/ceph. Shouldn't take more than a few days though. > One last thing... If you do have code you want to push upstream, please > submit a pull request(s) to our main bitbucket repo. > > Make sense? yes, thanks. Janne -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
