From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.20-pre sundance.c update Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:11:41 -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3D895C8D.6070504@mandrakesoft.com> References: <20020828185612.GA14342@reflexsecurity.com> <20020828231333.GA15183@reflexsecurity.com> <200209190353.g8J3r5q28456@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> <20020919041403.GA10527@orr.falooley.org> <3D89519C.1020809@mandrakesoft.com> <20020919045621.GA11144@orr.falooley.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, Richard Gooch , becker@scyld.com, "Patrick R. McManus" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Return-path: To: Jason Lunz List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Jason Lunz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 12:25AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>It still has several flaws that were pointed out, but this is the base >>from which I would like testing and patching to proceed. (also >>hopefully the flaws are minor in terms of general operation) > > > what's the point of moving rx handling into rx_poll then running it in a > tasklet? I've tested an older variant of that scheme from D-Link and it > doesn't perform as well as my patch. It looks to me like an attempt to > keep this version synced with the NAPI version of the driver, but it > doesn't actually work very well. This is a merge and test point. The whole interrupt handler path is getting updated after this. (but thanks for the feedback, it is noted) > The functional part of my patch was just taking the tx handling from > d-link's driver and ditching the rx part. That and merging in the > cleanups from Becker's driver; most notably ignoring the broken > IntrRxDone bit. Maybe you could show me that in broken-out patches :)