From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:56:02 +1100
> Dave, the main point of my initial email was: should we provide a
> routine from the net core to initialize such dummy devices properly ?
> I'm a little worried that some day, the NAPI code will change and the
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 02:22 -0800, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 02:20:10AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > It also just occured to me that even if you use the dummy device
> > approach, it's the dummy device's quota that will be used by the
> > generic ->poll() downcall into the
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 02:20:10AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> It also just occured to me that even if you use the dummy device
> approach, it's the dummy device's quota that will be used by the
> generic ->poll() downcall into the driver.
Yes, that's true. That's why I made this parameter
Konfi
From: Eugene Surovegin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 02:15:55 -0800
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 01:59:54AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Eugene Surovegin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:45:02 -0800
> >
> > > I fail to see how this is not even more ugly and more c
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 01:59:54AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eugene Surovegin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:45:02 -0800
>
> > I fail to see how this is not even more ugly and more complex than the
> > solution we have right now. Instead of trivial "orthogonal" polling
>
From: Eugene Surovegin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:45:02 -0800
> I fail to see how this is not even more ugly and more complex than the
> solution we have right now. Instead of trivial "orthogonal" polling
> code you are suggesting adding additional complexity - handle
> dynami
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 01:16:27AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:24:06 +1100
>
> >
> > > What Eugene does currently, which seems to me like it's actually the
> > > only proper solution, is to create a separate net_device
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:24:06 +1100
>
> > What Eugene does currently, which seems to me like it's actually the
> > only proper solution, is to create a separate net_device structure for
> > the DMA engine and thus have a single NAPI poll & weight
> What Eugene does currently, which seems to me like it's actually the
> only proper solution, is to create a separate net_device structure for
> the DMA engine and thus have a single NAPI poll & weighting for all the
> EMACs sharing a given MAL (MAL is the name of that DMA engine). This
> means t
Hi Dave !
I'd like your advice on something we need to deal with in the EMAC
ethernet driver (an IBM part). The driver is maintainedby Eugene (CC'd),
I'm mostly adding support for some new hardware at this point, which
involves making it SMP safe among other things ;-)
So the problem this driver
10 matches
Mail list logo
