From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:31:52 +1000
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:26:26PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > > I don't think it will be worthwhile to keep NAPI around just for > > TX completion. Sure the dev_kfree_skb() will schedule software > > interrupt work to do the actual free, but the TX ring walking > > and dev_kfree_skb() calls will be in hard IRQ context. > > Sure we won't need all of NAPI. But would it be that bad to schedule > a tasklet to do the TX completion? It seems just an extra level of indirection. :) > Oh, I'm not proposing that we disable IRQs on xmit_lock at all. ... I understand what you're saying. What I'm talking about is that in net channel drivers we might go back to IRQ disabling locks again. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
