| To: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: PATCH Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: Bonding driver unreliable under high CPUload |
| From: | "Jay Vosburgh" <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:56:15 -0700 |
| Cc: | Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxx>, "Cureington, Tony" <tony.cureington@xxxxxx>, Pascal Brisset <pascal.brisset-ml@xxxxxxxxxx>, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Importance: | Normal |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sensitivity: |
No, it doesn't. This is a mere band aid until somebody can get time
to do it right. It's "less bad."
-J
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 09/18/2002 05:48:24 PM
To: Jay Vosburgh/Beaverton/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxx>, "Cureington, Tony"
<tony.cureington@xxxxxx>, Pascal Brisset
<pascal.brisset-ml@xxxxxxxxxx>, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: PATCH Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: Bonding driver unreliable
under high CPUload
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>
> Ok, here is a patch for bonding against 2.4.20-pre7. This gets rid
> of the MII_whatever macros, wraps ioctl() to make it less bad, and
replaces
> a couple of magic numbers with friendly labels.
>
> Comments?
The patch looks ok but doesn't address the core problem that the link
state is checked in interrupt context.
Jeff
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: PATCH Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: Bonding driver unreliable under high CPUload, Jeff Garzik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: PATCH Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: Bonding driver unreliable under high CPUload, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: PATCH Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: Bonding driver unreliable under high CPUload, Jeff Garzik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: PATCH Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: Bonding driver unreliable under high CPUload, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |