From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [216.27.180.168]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447F067B79 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:32:52 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20060816.163252.64000941.davem@davemloft.net> To: linas@austin.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]: powerpc/cell spidernet bottom half From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20060816233028.GO20551@austin.ibm.com> References: <20060816.143203.11626235.davem@davemloft.net> <200608170016.47072.arnd@arndb.de> <20060816233028.GO20551@austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: akpm@osdl.org, arnd@arndb.de, jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jklewis@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Jens.Osterkamp@de.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:30:28 -0500 > Why would you want o do this? It seems like a cruddier strategy > than what we can already do (which is to never get an transmit > interrupt, as long as the kernel can shove data into the device fast > enough to keep the queue from going empty.) The whole *point* of a > low-watermark interrupt is to never have to actually get the interrupt, > if the rest of the system is on its toes and is supplying data fast > enough. As long as TX packets get freed within a certain latency boundary, this kind of scheme should be fine.