From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Two more pasemi_mac patches for 2.6.26 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:41:19 -0400 Message-ID: <47EBF85F.6070200@pobox.com> References: <20080326015625.GA23103@lixom.net> <47E9CD2E.7040203@pobox.com> <20080327192204.GA17881@lixom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, pasemi-linux@ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Olof Johansson Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:33561 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757234AbYC0TlY (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:41:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080327192204.GA17881@lixom.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Olof Johansson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:12:30AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Olof Johansson wrote: >>> Hi Jeff, >>> >>> The below two patches go on top of the previous patches that were acked >>> by you but applied to pasemi.git for feed up through powerpc.git. >>> >>> One is a couple of fixes for various corner cases in the jumbo support >>> configuration. The second is addition of netpoll support, from Nate >>> Case. >>> >>> Review/ack would be appreciated, I'll feed them up the same path as the >>> other changes. >> ACK 1-2, though I would consider closely patch #2, whether you need >> disable_irq() or spin_lock_irqsave() -- which is best for your specific >> driver + platform? > > I'm tempted to leave the disable/enable_irq() in there. It's certainly > heavier than doing cpu-side irq masking, but adding a spinlock to the > common interrupt path seems worse to me. I didn't think we considered > the polling to be a hot path anyway... Definitely not a hot path :)