RE: My vote against eepro* removal

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 14:09 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 11:26 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote:
> > > From: Lee Revell
> > > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 08:19 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote:
> > > > Last time I tested (around 2.6.12), eepro100 worked much better 
> > > > in -rt kernels w.r.t. latencies than e100:
> 
> Try the latest -rt kernel with e100 to see if it still is a delay.  You
> can also run in PREEMPT_DESKTOP so that the interrupt handlers are not
> threads and see if that shows up in the latency.

I just booted up 2.6.15-rt6 (PREEMPT_DESKTOP, regular soft and hard
irqs) on a 366 MHz UP machine with init=/bin/bash.  Loaded the e100
driver, setup the network. Then started to ping it from another box.  I
had a 80 usec latency, and that wasn't even from the network card.

So, e100 should not be a problem.  I did see the interrupts go off every
2 seconds too.

Check to see if you still get the latencies with e100 and the latest
kernel.

As Lee already said.  You notice something fishy __PLEASE__ report it.
Arjan's response was that this shows that we should only have one driver
for a certain task, otherwise people wont report a problem with one, if
the other satisfies their needs. And thus, the problem remains.

-- Steve