From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: Reduce looping in the interrupt handler.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:02:58 -0700
Message-ID: <m11vmy737x.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
References: <1250895567.23419.1.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
	<1250897657.23419.5.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
	<m1iqggf4rf.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> <m18whcf3w2.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	<1250973787.3582.14.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
	<m1r5v0ogvw.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	<1251169150.4023.11.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
	<m1prajabk8.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	<1251232848.9607.15.camel@lap75545.ornl.gov>
	<m1k50r8u4p.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
	<20090825221903.GA13630@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com>
	<m1iqgbknun.fsf_-_@fess.ebiederm.org>
	<1251294974.14241.9.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
	<1251295175.14241.11.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Francois Romieu <romieu@fr.zoreil.com>,
	Michael Riepe <michael.riepe@googlemail.com>,
	Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>,
	Rui Santos <rsantos@grupopie.com>,
	Michael B??ker <m.bueker@berlin.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: David Dillow <dave@thedillows.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1753195AbZHZUDH@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1251295175.14241.11.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org> (David Dillow's message of "Wed\, 26 Aug 2009 09\:59\:35 -0400")
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

David Dillow <dave@thedillows.org> writes:

> On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 09:56 -0400, David Dillow wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 00:58 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/r8169.c b/drivers/net/r8169.c
>> > index 3b19e0c..2214945 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/net/r8169.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/r8169.c
>> 
>> > +
>> > +		/* Ignore the parts of status that reflect more than
>> > +		 * the enabled interrupts.
>> > +		 */
>> > +		smp_rmb();
>> > +		if (!(status & tp->intr_mask & tp->intr_event))
>> > +			break;
>> >  	}
>> 
>> This looks like an odd construct, since we're just about to go back the
>> while condition up top -- why not just mask it here and let the loop
>> handle it naturally?
>
> Never mind, I see what you are doing -- avoiding a false loop if we get
> status == 0xffff. I still don't like the aesthetics of it, but it makes
> sense, and I'll blame it on the card. :)
>
> I should really get some caffeine before posting...  

It is a bit weird but it also means we aren't playing silly games
with status inside the loop.  So if we go through the loop we ack
everything in status.

Eric