From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kok, Auke" Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix e100 rx path on ARM (was [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:13:41 -0700 Message-ID: <46609A15.4000805@intel.com> References: <200705011124.l41BOEG4007662@sullivan.realtime.net> <46375664.8030701@roinet.com> <4638F2B2.2000103@roinet.com> <463BA906.30205@roinet.com> <85f07fc58d5ed2147d5214d0f0b4fe32@bga.com> <4648A9DF.6030001@roinet.com> <464D074F.20400@pobox.com> <464D21B6.2000208@intel.com> <464DB336.2030003@roinet.com> <464DB619.3070900@roinet.com> <464DC676.90504@intel.com> <464DCA97.3070405@roinet.com> <464DCD5E.50003@intel.com> <464DDE3E.9010400@roinet.com> <4651DAC1.7050604@intel.com> <53c44b6f03973eb1b28f221859d3002c@bga.com> <465369AF.8080508@roinet.com> <4654B2E4.9010308@roinet.com> <039d8ee49a8dfcbff8695b19d0a1a5c4@bga.com> <465C4DBE.6000205@roinet.com> <94c8ff9069a77568513a9a1d1e60012d@bga.com> <4660856E.80403@roinet.com> <46608BFE.7000905@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Acker , Milton Miller , "Kok, Auke" , e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jeff Kirsher , John Ronciak , Jesse Brandeburg , Scott Feldman , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:33143 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751710AbXFAWNu (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 18:13:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46608BFE.7000905@pobox.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > David Acker wrote: >> Milton Miller wrote: >> the el flag but we leave the size was 0 bit set. This was we can find >> this buffer again later. >> >> If the hardware sees the el-bit cleared without the size set, it will >> move on to the next buffer and skip this one. If it sees >> the size set but the el-bit still set, it will complete that buffer >> and then RNR interrupt and wait. >> >> >> Signed-off-by: David Acker > > That seems to vaguely match my memory of what eepro100 was doing (or > trying to do). > > I _really_ appreciate you working on this problem. Getting e100 driver > stable for the long term, and ditching eepro100, is a big hurdle to > cross. Getting this right is really one of the last steps. yes, absolutely agreed. I'm very pleased with the attention and hope that is clear to everyone. > The patch looks OK at quick glance. Besides copying the style errors, it looks OK as well. I will attempt to allocate some testing time again early next week on a small library of e100 nics over here. Mostly x86, but still useful to spot obvious mistakes. Auke