On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Gleb Smirnoff <gleb...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 09:39:24AM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > J> > To me this unlock/lock looks like a legacy from times, when the driver > J> > had a single mutex for both TX and RX parts. > J> > > J> > And removing this re-locking in foo_rxeof() was one of the aims for > J> > separate > J> > TX/RX locking. > J> > > J> > Really, lurking through history shows that once driver had split its > J> > locking > J> > to separate RX and TX part, these unlock/lock was removed. However, > later > J> > this unlock/lock was added back: > J> > > J> > > J> > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/dev/e1000/if_igb.c?revision=209068&view=markup > J> > > J> > , without any comments for the reason it is added back. > J> > > J> > I did not want to add it back, there were problems that constrained > me to > J> do so, although its > J> been some time, I'd be happy to do some testing again without and see. > > Can you please dig through mail archives to identify these problems? I > can't imagine any. > > It may not be in email, there were tests going on internally here that I often was working with... At this point it doesn't matter, Alexander says its running without, I will have some more testing on current code and go from there. Jack _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
