On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:50:00AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote: > Neil Horman wrote: > >On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:28:28AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote: > >>Neil Horman wrote: > >>>On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:05:11PM +1000, Peter Williams wrote: > > > >Damn, This is what happens when I try to do things too quickly. I missed > >one > >spot in my last patch where I replaced skb with rx_skb. Its not critical, > >but > >it should improve sis900 performance by quite a bit. This applies on top > >of the > >last two patches. Sorry about that. > > > >Thanks & Regards > >Neil > > > >Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > sis900.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > >diff --git a/drivers/net/sis900.c b/drivers/net/sis900.c > >index 7e44939..db59dce 100644 > >--- a/drivers/net/sis900.c > >+++ b/drivers/net/sis900.c > >@@ -1790,7 +1790,7 @@ static int sis900_rx(struct net_device *net_dev) > > /* give the socket buffer to upper layers */ > > rx_skb = sis_priv->rx_skbuff[entry]; > > skb_put(rx_skb, rx_size); > >- skb->protocol = eth_type_trans(rx_skb, net_dev); > >+ rx_skb->protocol = eth_type_trans(rx_skb, net_dev); > > netif_rx(rx_skb); > > > > /* some network statistics */ > > My system also boots OK after I add this patch. Can't tell whether it's > improved the performance or not.
I've had other report of performance degradation (frames thrown out for not having a valid protocol assigned to them). This patch may not improve your performance per se, but it will certainly not hurt, and its correct (for the same reason that using a separate skb pointer is correct in all the other lines in this clause. Thanks, and sorry again for all the headache. Neil - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
