From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com (Troy Kisky)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:50:53 -0700
Subject: [PATCH net-next V3 05/16] net: fec: reduce interrupts
In-Reply-To: <20160406.235731.57253886354009409.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <1459909562-22865-6-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
 <20160406.172008.266926707628676037.davem@davemloft.net>
 <5705AD07.10009@boundarydevices.com>
 <20160406.235731.57253886354009409.davem@davemloft.net>
Message-ID: <570681DD.5020208@boundarydevices.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 4/6/2016 8:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:42:47 -0700
> 
>> Sure, that's an easy change. But if a TX int is what caused the
>> interrupt and masks them, and then a RX packet happens before napi
>> runs, do you want the TX serviced 1st, or RX ?
> 
> If you properly split your driver up into seperate interrupt/poll
> instances, one for TX one for RX, you wouldn't need to ask me
> that question now would you?
> 
> :-)
> 

I absolutely claim no ownership :-)