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 created a pull request with my neon optimisations, the SSE -> SIMD rename and some minor fixes. The neon methods all reside in their own files, I didn't come up with good solution for the init / scratch_size functions, so I added arm-specific defines there. > 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. Yes, there was no SIMD work in jerasure. Please have a look at https://bitbucket.org/jimplank/gf-complete/pull-request/25/arm-neon-optimisations I'll be available to address review comments and suggestions. regards 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
