On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote:
> anju Mary wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > I got reply for some of my queries.I was told to
> post
> > the changes in form of a patch against rtnet.git.But i dont know how to
> post
> > in the specified format.
>
> Unified diff (diff -up orig.file modified.file). Or have at look at git,
> clone rtnet's repository and add your changes as commits. Those can be
> exported in the required format as well.
>
> > Now i am sending my entire driver program with this
> > mail can anyone check it out and give me feedbacks???????
> > thanks in advance....
>
> Uhh, this looks nasty.
>
> There is no ts109 in the upstream kernel, and the tsi108 there looks
> much nicer as it was cleaned up before being merged. The usage of the
> various Linux spinlock in ts109 make me doubt that the original driver
> was ever reviewed by the kernel community. Where did you get your
> version from? Do you have some link to that code?
>
>
> Some more remarks on your changes:
> - The copyright header only indirectly states that this code is under
> GPL and it fails to mention the version.
> - Make sure to use proper locking. rtdm_irq_disable/enable should not
> be used to disable IRQs for a critical section, rtdm_lock_* comes
> with proper IRQ-blocking services.
> - Do no convert a Linux spinlock to an rtdm_lock if it is not used in
> some critical path. E.g. the stat functions do not belong into this
> category, the RTnet core call them in normal Linux context.
> - rtdm_lock_get is not equivalent to spin_lock, the latter implies
> preemption disabling, the former not.
>
> I already commented on the other topics like (non-existent) skb
> fragmentation.
>
> Jan
>
> Hai,
I got some feed-backs of my ethernet driver.Thank you very much.But i
need some more clarifications on certain functions and part of code
mentioned below.
There is no ts109 in the upstream kernel, and the tsi108 there looks
much nicer as it was cleaned up before being merged.
Where did you get your version from? Do you have some link to that code?
The usage of the various Linux spinlock in ts109 make me doubt that the
original driver was ever reviewed by the kernel community.
>> I got this driver[tsi108] from Tundra web site on request. In fact it
was
tsi108 driver, i just renamed variables and functions. The data sheet
tells
108 and 109 have no significant difference.
[I am also sure that this driver may not have reviewed by kernel
community.
There are too many spin locks compared to any other drivers i have
seen.]
Make sure to use proper locking. rtdm_irq_disable/enable should not be used
to
disable IRQs for a critical section, rtdm_lock_* comes with proper
IRQ-blocking services.
>> I blindly followed the README.drvporting section 17.1
README.drvporting does not say anything about spin_lock_irq.
How can i convert the function spin_lock_irq to the one which suitable
for Rtnet format?
Do no convert a Linux spinlock to an rtdm_lock if it is not used in some
critical path.[stat]
>> Does this means i can just drop any locking in stat function???
rtdm_lock_get is not equivalent to spin_lock, the latter implies preemption
disabling, the former not.
>> Is README.drvporting section 19 applicable only within interrupt
Handler???
anju
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
RTnet-users mailing list
RTnet-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rtnet-users
