| To: | "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, <prasanna@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: [2/4] pollcontroller patch for 2.6.0-test10-bk25-netdrvr-exp1 |
| From: | "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:36:30 -0800 |
| Cc: | <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <suparna@xxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcO6+s2n/YLrRrA9R2aOF4Vb2yga6AAe/gAQ |
| Thread-topic: | [2/4] pollcontroller patch for 2.6.0-test10-bk25-netdrvr-exp1 |
> For both, as Scott mentioned, they don't look tested under NAPI. For > e100 specifically, there is a spiffy new e100 that would need to be > re-diffed and tested against. Specifically, we need to care about insuring netif_rx is called in the poll_controller callback, rather than netif_receive_skb. If you use netif_receive_skb (NAPI mode), the netdump conversation is one-sided. tg3.c looks broken in this regard in the 2.6-exp BK tree, BTW. Additionally, if you have VLANs enabled on the interface, we might need to care about netif_hwaccell_[rx|receive_skb]. Something tells me all of the netif_* receive funcs need to handle the netdump conversation. That would be easier than special casing poll_controller in each driver. Is someone working on this? We're working on e100/e1000 patches for the current scheme, so we'll post these when we've tested the various NAPI/VLAN combinations. -scott |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.6 PATCH] bridge - provide valid tos value for ip_route_output_key, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] IPv6 MIB:ipv6Prefix netlink notification, Shirley Ma |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [2/4] pollcontroller patch for 2.6.0-test10-bk25-netdrvr-exp1, Feldman, Scott |
| Next by Thread: | RE: [2/4] pollcontroller patch for 2.6.0-test10-bk25-netdrvr-exp1, Feldman, Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |