From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claudiu Manoil Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 3/4] gianfar: Separate out the Rx and Tx coalescing functions Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:24:48 +0300 Message-ID: <5023E450.9090704@freescale.com> References: <1344428810-29923-1-git-send-email-claudiu.manoil@freescale.com> <1344428810-29923-2-git-send-email-claudiu.manoil@freescale.com> <1344428810-29923-3-git-send-email-claudiu.manoil@freescale.com> <1344428810-29923-4-git-send-email-claudiu.manoil@freescale.com> <20120808154454.GA11043@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , "David S. Miller" To: Paul Gortmaker Return-path: Received: from co1ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.184]:6561 "EHLO co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753072Ab2HIQZC (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:25:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120808154454.GA11043@windriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 8/8/2012 6:44 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > [[RFC net-next 3/4] gianfar: Separate out the Rx and Tx coalescing functions] On 08/08/2012 (Wed 15:26) Claudiu Manoil wrote: > >> Split the coalescing programming support by Rx and Tx h/w queues, in order to >> introduce a separate NAPI for the Tx confirmation path (next patch). This way, >> the Rx processing path will handle the coalescing settings for the Rx queues >> only, resp. the Tx confirmation processing path will handle the Tx queues. >> >> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Manoil >> --- >> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c >> index ddd350a..919acb3 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c >> @@ -1794,8 +1794,8 @@ void gfar_start(struct net_device *dev) >> dev->trans_start = jiffies; /* prevent tx timeout */ >> } >> >> -void gfar_configure_coalescing(struct gfar_private *priv, >> - unsigned long tx_mask, unsigned long rx_mask) >> +static inline void gfar_configure_tx_coalescing(struct gfar_private *priv, > > I believe the preference is to not specify inline when all the chunks in > play are present in the one C file -- i.e. let gcc figure it out. Same > for the Rx instance below. > > P. > -- I agree with you. thanks