From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] skge: use per-port phy locking Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:49:41 -0400 Message-ID: <46036A75.6030005@pobox.com> References: <20070316210125.324052637@linux-foundation.org> <20070316210155.954697018@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:60439 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753173AbXCWFtm (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:49:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070316210155.954697018@linux-foundation.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Stephen Hemminger wrote: > Rather than a workqueue and a per-board mutex to control PHY, > use a tasklet and spinlock. Tasklet is lower overhead and works > just as well for this. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger Like we give a crap about overhead of PHY code. This seems like the wrong direction to me, but let's see where this leads. Jeff