Hi,
Adrian Bunk (1):
The overdue eepro100 removal.
That would be a rather pronounced NAK then? (sorry ;)
(reason: rendering my web surfing box useless due to networking loss,
see thread [RFC/PATCH] e100 driver didn't support any MII-less PHYs...)
AFAICS e100 is still
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:25:15 +0100 Andreas Mohr a...@lisas.de wrote:
Hi,
Adrian Bunk (1):
The overdue eepro100 removal.
That would be a rather pronounced NAK then? (sorry ;)
(reason: rendering my web surfing box useless due to networking loss,
see thread [RFC/PATCH] e100
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:25:15 +0100 Andreas Mohr a...@lisas.de wrote:
Hi,
Adrian Bunk (1):
The overdue eepro100 removal.
That would be a rather pronounced NAK then? (sorry ;)
(reason: rendering my web
Hi
Jeff wrote:
The performance to be gained from multiple queues is very small, and
was not a requirement for our Linux software.
Why performance gain would be very small ?
My opinion was that 2 or more RX queues enables multlithreaded softirq
processing? i.e ksoftirq/0 ... ksoftirq/X
Thus,
