Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

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)


This search system is powered by Namazu