From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Dillow <dave@thedillows.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: Reduce looping in the interrupt handler.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:59:35 -0400
Message-ID: <1251295175.14241.11.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
References: <1250895567.23419.1.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
	 <1250897657.23419.5.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
	 <m1iqggf4rf.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> <m18whcf3w2.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	 <1250973787.3582.14.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
	 <m1r5v0ogvw.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	 <1251169150.4023.11.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
	 <m1prajabk8.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	 <1251232848.9607.15.camel@lap75545.ornl.gov>
	 <m1k50r8u4p.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	 <20090825221903.GA13630@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com>
	 <m1iqgbknun.fsf_-_@fess.ebiederm.org>
	 <1251294974.14241.9.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Francois Romieu <romieu@fr.zoreil.com>,
	Michael Riepe <michael.riepe@googlemail.com>,
	Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>,
	Rui Santos <rsantos@grupopie.com>,
	Michael B??ker <m.bueker@berlin.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.knology.net ([24.214.63.101]:38434 "EHLO smtp.knology.net"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1757409AbZHZN7h (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:59:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1251294974.14241.9.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 09:56 -0400, David Dillow wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 00:58 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/r8169.c b/drivers/net/r8169.c
> > index 3b19e0c..2214945 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/r8169.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/r8169.c
> 
> > +
> > +		/* Ignore the parts of status that reflect more than
> > +		 * the enabled interrupts.
> > +		 */
> > +		smp_rmb();
> > +		if (!(status & tp->intr_mask & tp->intr_event))
> > +			break;
> >  	}
> 
> This looks like an odd construct, since we're just about to go back the
> while condition up top -- why not just mask it here and let the loop
> handle it naturally?

Never mind, I see what you are doing -- avoiding a false loop if we get
status == 0xffff. I still don't like the aesthetics of it, but it makes
sense, and I'll blame it on the card. :)

I should really get some caffeine before posting...