Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+2\.6\.9\-rc2\s+7\/8\]\s+S2io\:\s+NAPI\s+fix\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 7/8] S2io: NAPI fix (score: 1)
Author: " <ravinandan.arakali@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:16:18 -0700
This patch contains the following NAPI related fixes. 1. When processing Rx packets, making sure that get offset of ring does not cross the put offset. 2. when NAPI is not in use a new spinlock(put_
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00422.html (8,820 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 7/8] S2io: NAPI fix (score: 1)
Author: Petr Konecny <pekon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:00:27 -0400
Comments on patch #7: 1) Can you prove that put_lock is really necessary, and not covered by other methods of synchronization? Typically the preferred model is that your RX process requires _no_ spin
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00439.html (8,295 bytes)

3. RE: [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 7/8] S2io: NAPI fix (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:44:03 -0700
Hi Jeff, My comments inline. <KSK> Lets say, CPU0 after processing s2io_isr, schedules s2io_tasklet. The tasklet in turn calls fill_rx_buffer which will replenish skbs into Rx descriptors and start m
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00442.html (9,347 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 7/8] S2io: NAPI fix (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:53:46 -0400
Raghavendra Koushik wrote: Hi Jeff, My comments inline. --Original Message-- From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:00 AM To: ravinandan.arakali@xxxxxxxx Cc:
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00523.html (10,005 bytes)

5. [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 7/8] S2io: NAPI fix (score: 1)
Author: "Ravinandan Arakali" <ravinandan.arakali@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:16:18 -0700
Hi, This patch contains the following NAPI related fixes. 1. When processing Rx packets, making sure that get offset of ring does not cross the put offset. 2. when NAPI is not in use a new spinlock(p
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg01920.html (8,820 bytes)

6. Re: [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 7/8] S2io: NAPI fix (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:00:27 -0400
Comments on patch #7: 1) Can you prove that put_lock is really necessary, and not covered by other methods of synchronization? Typically the preferred model is that your RX process requires _no_ spin
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg01937.html (8,355 bytes)

7. RE: [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 7/8] S2io: NAPI fix (score: 1)
Author: "Raghavendra Koushik" <raghavendra.koushik@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:44:03 -0700
Hi Jeff, My comments inline. <KSK> Lets say, CPU0 after processing s2io_isr, schedules s2io_tasklet. The tasklet in turn calls fill_rx_buffer which will replenish skbs into Rx descriptors and start m
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg01940.html (9,386 bytes)

8. Re: [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 7/8] S2io: NAPI fix (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:53:46 -0400
My comments inline. --Original Message-- From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:00 AM To: ravinandan.arakali@xxxxxxxx Cc: 'Francois Romieu'; netdev@xxxxxxxxxx
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg02021.html (9,849 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu