Re: [PATCH] tg3_msi() and weakly ordered memory

[Grant Grundler <iod00d@xxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:43:17AM -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
...
> Something like:
> 
> if (sblk->status_tag != tp->last_tag)
>       clear_interrupt();
>       netif_rx_schedule();
> 
> This way we don't have to clear the SD_STATUS_UPDATED bit. I will
> experiment with this and see if it works well.

that sounds good - thanks.

> I don't think we are reading the index on every iteration. In tg3_rx(),
> we read it at the beginning before the loop, and one more time if we
> have caught up with the hw index before exiting the loop.

oh - sorry - my bad. Same is true for tg3_tx().

And I just noticed I'm smoking crack on "nested locks" too...
one is "lock" and the other is "tx_lock".
*sigh* - need more sleep.

> I mildly disagree. I think we should maximize the amount of work done in
> tg3_poll(). For example, reading the rx_producer index one more time
> when we have caught up with hw index before exiting the loop is a good
> thing IMO.

ok.

thanks,
grant