On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:11:18PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> My sk_start() tries to fill the tx ring (to length 512) and then put
> an interrupt mark only on the last fragment in a packet nearest to 32
>
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:11:18PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
>
> Please trim quotes.
>
> >On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:04:26PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> >> To max out the link without unmaxing CPU for other uses, you do have
> >> to know whe
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
Please trim quotes.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:04:26PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> To max out the link without unmaxing CPU for other uses, you do have
> to know when the tx approaches running out of packets. This is best
> done using watermark stu
On 18-Jun-2006 John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> John Polstra wrote this message on Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:18 -0700:
>> in the HW but have not yet completed. When the completion interrupt
>> comes in, the driver is supposed to check the if_snd queue for more
>> mbufs and process them. Only when the tran
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:04:26PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> >John Polstra wrote this message on Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:18 -0700:
> >>in the HW but have not yet completed. When the completion interrupt
> >>comes in, the driver is supposed t
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
John Polstra wrote this message on Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:18 -0700:
in the HW but have not yet completed. When the completion interrupt
comes in, the driver is supposed to check the if_snd queue for more
mbufs and process them. Only when the trans
John Polstra wrote this message on Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:18 -0700:
> in the HW but have not yet completed. When the completion interrupt
> comes in, the driver is supposed to check the if_snd queue for more
> mbufs and process them. Only when the transmit side of the HW goes
> totally idle shou
On 15-Jun-2006 Robert Watson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, John Polstra wrote:
>
>> Can somebody explain why there is both an IF_HANDOFF macro and an
>> IFQ_HANDOFF macro? Except for a slight difference in parameters, they both
>> seem to do roughly the same thing using completely distinct bloc
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, John Polstra wrote:
Can somebody explain why there is both an IF_HANDOFF macro and an
IFQ_HANDOFF macro? Except for a slight difference in parameters, they both
seem to do roughly the same thing using completely distinct blocks of code.
Is IF_HANDOFF supposed to be used o
Can somebody explain why there is both an IF_HANDOFF macro and an
IFQ_HANDOFF macro? Except for a slight difference in parameters,
they both seem to do roughly the same thing using completely distinct
blocks of code. Is IF_HANDOFF supposed to be used only when the
target queue is not the interfac
10 matches
Mail list logo
