From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Subject: Re: question about netif_rx Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:12:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20130811155640.GA10070@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Julia Lawall , grant.likely@linaro.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org To: Francois Romieu Return-path: Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:12044 "EHLO mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754129Ab3HKQMy (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:12:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130811155640.GA10070@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 11 Aug 2013, Francois Romieu wrote: > Julia Lawall : > > To my limited understanding, in a NAPI polling function, one should use > > netif_receive_skb, rather than netif_rx. > > Nit: or napi_gro_receive (+ napi_gro_flush with __napi_complete) when the > device offers some checksum offloading features. OK, thanks for the information. I am just trying to understand these functions... > > However, the via-velocity driver defines the NAPI polling function > > velocity_poll, which is the only caller of velocity_rx_srv, which > > is the only caller of velocity_receive_frame, which calls netif_rx. > > The call to netif_rx seems to predate the introduction of NAPI in > > this driver. Is this correct? > > You are right. It's a leftover of the NAPI changes in this driver. > > Can you send a netif_receive_skb replacement patch for it ? Just to be sure, I just replace netif_rx by netif_receive_skb, nothing else? thanks, julia