| To: | "Felix Radensky" <felix@xxxxxxxxx>, "Ben Greear" <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: e100 "Ferguson" release |
| From: | "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:19:25 -0700 |
| Cc: | "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcNbKsmh/6+8q5R8RsOBg+Su6l5c9gANLF4Q |
| Thread-topic: | e100 "Ferguson" release |
> 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?
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: e100 "Ferguson" release, David Brownell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: e100 "Ferguson" release, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: e100 "Ferguson" release, Feldman, Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: e100 "Ferguson" release, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |