On 4/6/2016 8:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Troy Kisky
> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:42:47 -0700
>
>> Sure, that's an easy change. But if a TX int is what caused the
>> interrupt and masks them, and then a RX packet happens before napi
>> runs, do you want the TX serviced 1st, or RX ?
>
> If y
From: Troy Kisky
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:42:47 -0700
> Sure, that's an easy change. But if a TX int is what caused the
> interrupt and masks them, and then a RX packet happens before napi
> runs, do you want the TX serviced 1st, or RX ?
If you properly split your driver up into seperate interru
On 4/6/2016 2:20 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Troy Kisky
> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:25:51 -0700
>
>> By clearing the NAPI interrupts in the NAPI routine
>> and not in the interrupt handler, we can reduce the
>> number of interrupts. We also don't need any status
>> variables as the registers
From: Troy Kisky
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:25:51 -0700
> By clearing the NAPI interrupts in the NAPI routine
> and not in the interrupt handler, we can reduce the
> number of interrupts. We also don't need any status
> variables as the registers are still valid.
>
> Also, notice that if budget p
dead.org; johan...@sipsolutions.net;
> stillcompil...@gmail.com; sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com;
> a...@arndb.de; Troy Kisky
> Subject: [PATCH net-next V3 05/16] net: fec: reduce interrupts
>
> By clearing the NAPI interrupts in the NAPI routine and not in the interrupt
> han
By clearing the NAPI interrupts in the NAPI routine
and not in the interrupt handler, we can reduce the
number of interrupts. We also don't need any status
variables as the registers are still valid.
Also, notice that if budget pkts are received, the
next call to fec_enet_rx_napi will now continue
