Re: e100 "Ferguson" release

[Felix Radensky <felix@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Jeff, Scott

Are you planning to fix this before 2.4.22-final ?

Thanks.

Felix.

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 08:19:25AM -0700, Feldman, Scott wrote:
> > > I've also noticed that the number of hard_start_xmit failures 
> > > in e1000 has increased significantly in version 5.1.13-k1. In 
> > > version 5.0.43-k1 the number of failures was much smaller.
> > >     
> > Interesting.  Felix, would you undo the change[1] below in 5.1.13-k1 and
> > see what happens?  With the change below, 5.1.13 would be more
> > aggressive on Tx cleanup, so we'll be quicker waking the queue than
> > before. 
> >
> > -scott
> >
> >         for(i = 0; i < E1000_MAX_INTR; i++)
> > -               if(!e1000_clean_rx_irq(adapter) &&
> > +               if(!e1000_clean_rx_irq(adapter) &
> >                    !e1000_clean_tx_irq(adapter))
> >                         break;
> >
> > [1] Something still bothers me about this new form where we're mixing a
> > bit-wise operator with logical operands.  Should this bother me?
> >   
>
> It doesn't matter to the compiler if you make it explicit:
>
> 	unsigned int rx_work = e1000_clean_rx_irq();
> 	unsigned int tx_work = e1000_clean_tx_irq();
> 	if (!rx_work && !tx_work)
> 		break;