Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+r8169\s+NAPI\s+addition\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+r8169\s+NAPI\s+addition\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: rzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:10:09 -0500; Bonjour Francois, Below is my implementation of NAPI for the r8169 driver. I wrote and tested it on an x86_64 box running the 2.6.6-rc1 kernel, and it appears to work well. Let me know if you see any; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00314.html (14,189 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: all <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:25:30 +0200; Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx> : May be a bit low. 64 ? [...] What is the previous change intended for ? [...] ^^^^^^^^ The r8169 driver mostly uses u32 and such. A plain old int would be enough.; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00315.html (12,970 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:57:55 -0500; I used 16 because it was in the NAPI documentation. The e1000 and tg3 use 64, so that is good enough for me. Done. [...] Sorry, it was debug code for an unrelated error. Removed. [...] *tp, enough.; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00317.html (13,856 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: weij2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:49:11 +0200; Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx> : Ok. No objection against an unsigned int or an u32 instead ? [...] (sometimes hch is bored and dissects network patches too :o) ) I have no suggestion for the othe; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00318.html (11,733 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: 2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:45:07 -0600; architectures. I made them u32's, but in retrospect I should make them "unsigned int" for code uniformity (i.e., the heavy usage of "unsigned long"). Actually, all the driver u32's should be replace; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00327.html (11,250 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: <mike_keehan@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:25:01 +0200; Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx> : Nonono, it is a PCI thing. Writes to (pci-)MMIO registers are posted and typically require a read in the MMIO range (or "some" time) to be committed to the final d; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00330.html (8,944 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Friesen <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:20:58 -0600; Hey Francois, Attached is the NAPI diff with all of the requested changes. I think I have it ready for you t accept, let me know any questions/comments. Also, I attempted to add Tx to NAPI, but the p; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00398.html (9,002 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: r <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:18:34 +0200; Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx> : -- r8169.c 2004-04-18 22:51:33.000000000 -0500 +++ r8169.c 2004-04-22 08:08:57.526577048 -0500 [...] @@ -1692,6 +1737,31 @@ static struct net_device_stats *rtl8169; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00409.html (10,382 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:27:17 -0500; Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx> : -- r8169.c 2004-04-18 22:51:33.000000000 -0500 +++ r8169.c 2004-04-22 08:08:57.526577048 -0500 [...] @@ -1692,6 +1737,31 @@ static struct net_device_stats *rtl8169; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00426.html (10,804 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:59:50 -0600; whereas Actually, I implemented it in a different way (though similar to #1). I have the Rx and TX bits not being cleared from the Interrupt status register while polling (which doesn't matter becau; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00444.html (9,843 bytes)
11. [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:10:09 -0500; Bonjour Francois, Below is my implementation of NAPI for the r8169 driver. I wrote and tested it on an x86_64 box running the 2.6.6-rc1 kernel, and it appears to work well. Let me know if you see any; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00848.html (14,189 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:25:30 +0200; Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx> : [...] May be a bit low. 64 ? [...] What is the previous change intended for ? [...] ^^^^^^^^ The r8169 driver mostly uses u32 and such. A plain old int would be en; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00849.html (13,144 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:57:55 -0500; [...] I used 16 because it was in the NAPI documentation. The e1000 and tg3 use 64, so that is good enough for me. Done. [...] Sorry, it was debug code for an unrelated error. Removed. [...] *tp, eno; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00851.html (13,885 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:49:11 +0200; Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx> : [...] Ok. No objection against an unsigned int or an u32 instead ? [...] (sometimes hch is bored and dissects network patches too :o) ) I have no suggestion for th; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00852.html (11,936 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:45:07 -0600; architectures. I made them u32's, but in retrospect I should make them "unsigned int" for code uniformity (i.e., the heavy usage of "unsigned long"). Actually, all the driver u32's should be replace; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00861.html (11,279 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:25:01 +0200; Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx> : [...] Nonono, it is a PCI thing. Writes to (pci-)MMIO registers are posted and typically require a read in the MMIO range (or "some" time) to be committed to the f; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00864.html (9,147 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:20:58 -0600; Hey Francois, Attached is the NAPI diff with all of the requested changes. I think I have it ready for you t accept, let me know any questions/comments. Also, I attempted to add Tx to NAPI, but the p; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00932.html (9,058 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:18:34 +0200; Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx> : [...] -- r8169.c 2004-04-18 22:51:33.000000000 -0500 +++ r8169.c 2004-04-22 08:08:57.526577048 -0500 [...] @@ -1692,6 +1737,31 @@ static struct net_device_stats *r; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00943.html (10,612 bytes)
19. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:27:17 -0500; Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx> : [...] -- r8169.c 2004-04-18 22:51:33.000000000 -0500 +++ r8169.c 2004-04-22 08:08:57.526577048 -0500 [...] @@ -1692,6 +1737,31 @@ static struct net_device_stats *r; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00960.html (10,832 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH] r8169 NAPI addition (score: 1): Author: Jon D Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:59:50 -0600; whereas Actually, I implemented it in a different way (though similar to #1). I have the Rx and TX bits not being cleared from the Interrupt status register while polling (which doesn't matter becau; /archives/netdev/2004-04/msg00978.html (9,843 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]