From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Two more pasemi_mac patches for 2.6.26 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:22:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20080327192204.GA17881@lixom.net> References: <20080326015625.GA23103@lixom.net> <47E9CD2E.7040203@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, pasemi-linux@ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Return-path: Received: from lixom.net ([66.141.50.11]:55139 "EHLO mail.lixom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756314AbYC0TNX (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:13:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47E9CD2E.7040203@pobox.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:12:30AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Olof Johansson wrote: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> The below two patches go on top of the previous patches that were acked >> by you but applied to pasemi.git for feed up through powerpc.git. >> >> One is a couple of fixes for various corner cases in the jumbo support >> configuration. The second is addition of netpoll support, from Nate >> Case. >> >> Review/ack would be appreciated, I'll feed them up the same path as the >> other changes. > > ACK 1-2, though I would consider closely patch #2, whether you need > disable_irq() or spin_lock_irqsave() -- which is best for your specific > driver + platform? I'm tempted to leave the disable/enable_irq() in there. It's certainly heavier than doing cpu-side irq masking, but adding a spinlock to the common interrupt path seems worse to me. I didn't think we considered the polling to be a hot path anyway... -Olof