On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:11:34 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:52:45 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:28:33
On 11/6/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:11:34 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:52:45 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:55:20 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/6/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:11:34 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:52:45
On 11/6/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:55:20 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/6/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:11:34 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger
Hi!
Some (long) time ago benh wrote a blaming comment in sungem.c about
that driver's locking strategy. That comment basically says that we
probably don't need two spinlocks.
I agree!
Proposal:
Today's sungem effectively uses two spinlock's: lock and tx_lock.
tx_lock is held by the xmit
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 14:00 +0100, Eric Lemoine wrote:
Hi!
Some (long) time ago benh wrote a blaming comment in sungem.c about
that driver's locking strategy. That comment basically says that we
probably don't need two spinlocks.
Yeah :) Note that I mostly blamed myself there ... Just never
On 11/5/06, Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 14:00 +0100, Eric Lemoine wrote:
Hi!
Some (long) time ago benh wrote a blaming comment in sungem.c about
that driver's locking strategy. That comment basically says that we
probably don't need two spinlocks.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:17:38 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 14:00 +0100, Eric Lemoine wrote:
Hi!
Some (long) time ago benh wrote a blaming comment in sungem.c about
that driver's locking
You could also just use net_tx_lock() now.
You mean netif_tx_lock()?
Thanks for letting me know about that function. Yes, I may need it.
tg3 and bnx2 use it to wake up the transmit queue:
if (unlikely(netif_queue_stopped(tp-dev)
(tg3_tx_avail(tp)
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:28:33 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could also just use net_tx_lock() now.
You mean netif_tx_lock()?
Thanks for letting me know about that function. Yes, I may need it.
tg3 and bnx2 use it to wake up the transmit queue:
if
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:28:33 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could also just use net_tx_lock() now.
You mean netif_tx_lock()?
Thanks for letting me know about that function. Yes, I may need it.
tg3 and bnx2 use it to
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:52:45 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:28:33 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could also just use net_tx_lock() now.
You mean netif_tx_lock()?
Thanks
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:52:45 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:28:33 +0100
Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could also just use
13 matches
Mail list logo
