From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: pull request: wireless 2011-11-22 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:44:39 -0500 Message-ID: <20111122214438.GG8452@tuxdriver.com> References: <20111122.151429.253381379981773726.davem@davemloft.net> <20111122205655.GE8452@tuxdriver.com> <20111122.160511.2302883259439708995.davem@davemloft.net> <20111122.161322.454163033398038634.davem@davemloft.net> <4ECC1479.8090209@lwfinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Larry Finger Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ECC1479.8090209@lwfinger.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 03:30:33PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote: > On 11/22/2011 03:13 PM, David Miller wrote: > >From: David Miller > >Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:05:11 -0500 (EST) > >Everyone can just return IRQ_HANDLED and everything would just work. > > > >But you know that's not the case, and that it's important that this value > >is returned accurately. > > I was trying to find the thread that reported the improvement in > performance with this change, but failed. Is it possible that their > change just papered over an interrupt storm from some other device > that shared that interrupt? Original patch was posted here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=132143811916674&w=2 And the Red Hat Bugzilla entry is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658451 > I'm following this because the rtlwifi-family of drivers already did > what was suggested here. If this is wrong, then so is it. Sounds like that nees to be fixed... John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.