[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] 3c59x.c for 2.2.17

To: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] 3c59x.c for 2.2.17
From: Bogdan Costescu <Bogdan.Costescu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:48:51 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Andreas Tobler <toa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <E136EHC-0002Xn-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Alan Cox wrote:

> No. I want to do

With all due respect, I don't understand!

>       if(<copybreak)
>       {
>               skb=alloc_skb(RING_SIZE);

What has RING_SIZE to do with the allocation of a buffer? Should it be
"PKT_BUF_SZ" instead (="size of each temporary Rx buffer") ?

>               if(skb==NULL)
>                       recycle original

What does "recycle" mean: is it sent up or kept? In case it's sent up, how
do we get another buffer? In case it's kept, what do we send?

>       }
>       else
>       {
>               alloc skb
>               if(skb!=NULL)
>                       copy
>       }

Now the "else" part is just the opposite of Don's copybreak scheme. Why
do you want to copy when pkt_size > rx_copybreak? Isn't memcpy too
expensive in this case?


Bogdan Costescu

IWR - Interdisziplinaeres Zentrum fuer Wissenschaftliches Rechnen
Universitaet Heidelberg, INF 368, D-69120 Heidelberg, GERMANY
Telephone: +49 6221 54 8869, Telefax: +49 6221 54 8868
E-mail: Bogdan.Costescu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>