From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: future developments of usbnet Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 12:01:40 +0200 Message-ID: <201105141201.40265.oliver@neukum.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , shemminger@vyatta.com, tom.leiming@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Return-path: Received: from smtp-out003.kontent.com ([81.88.40.217]:41669 "EHLO smtp-out003.kontent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752147Ab1ENJ7v (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 May 2011 05:59:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Donnerstag, 12. Mai 2011, 16:37:28 schrieb Alan Stern: > Therefore usbnet's poll routine should take the "weight" argument as an > indication of how many outstanding rx URBs are allowed. Each time the > poll routine is called, it should check to see if any rx URBs have > completed since the previous poll. If not then there is no network > traffic, so usbnet can take itself out of the poll loop. Otherwise, > the number of outstanding URBs should be adjusted (by unlinking some or > submitting more -- subject to some fixed maximum limit) to match the > new "weight". > > Does that make sense? What does happen if we reach the weight 0 ? Regards Oliver