Re: [RFC net-next 3/4] gianfar: Separate out the Rx and Tx coalescing functions

[Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@freescale.com>]

On 8/8/2012 6:44 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [[RFC net-next 3/4] gianfar: Separate out the Rx and Tx coalescing functions] On 08/08/2012 (Wed 15:26) Claudiu Manoil wrote:
>
>> Split the coalescing programming support by Rx and Tx h/w queues, in order to
>> introduce a separate NAPI for the Tx confirmation path (next patch). This way,
>> the Rx processing path will handle the coalescing settings for the Rx queues
>> only, resp. the Tx confirmation processing path will handle the Tx queues.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@freescale.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c |   36 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>   1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
>> index ddd350a..919acb3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
>> @@ -1794,8 +1794,8 @@ void gfar_start(struct net_device *dev)
>>   	dev->trans_start = jiffies; /* prevent tx timeout */
>>   }
>>
>> -void gfar_configure_coalescing(struct gfar_private *priv,
>> -			       unsigned long tx_mask, unsigned long rx_mask)
>> +static inline void gfar_configure_tx_coalescing(struct gfar_private *priv,
>
> I believe the preference is to not specify inline when all the chunks in
> play are present in the one C file -- i.e. let gcc figure it out.  Same
> for the Rx instance below.
>
> P.
> --
I agree with you.
thanks