[Jeff Garzik]
> Pretty much all ISA and PCI drivers need to be portable and SMP
> safe... if not so, it's a bug. That said, there is certainly more
> motivation to make a popular PCI driver is SMP safe than an older ISA
> driver.
Usually, but you never know...
"o SMP optimised 3c501"
Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Frank Davis wrote:
> >
> > I would rather fix those non-SMP compliant drivers to be SMP compliant,
> > then keeping them 'broken'. Adding the print statements would only be a
> > temporary solution.
>
> Of course. This list of priorites is v
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Frank Davis wrote:
>
> I would rather fix those non-SMP compliant drivers to be SMP compliant,
> then keeping them 'broken'. Adding the print statements would only be a
> temporary solution.
Of course. This list of priorites is very natural, I think:
1. Working SMP
> --On Friday, November 17, 2000 10:20 AM +0100 Tobias Ringstrom
> > How about adding an ifdef CONFIG_SMP then print ugly warning to all known
> > SMP unsafe drivers? A message could be printed booth at compile and load
> > time.
Frank Davis wrote:
> I would rather fix those non-SMP compl
I would rather fix those non-SMP compliant drivers to be SMP compliant,
then keeping them 'broken'. Adding the print statements would only be a
temporary solution.
Regards,
Frank
--On Friday, November 17, 2000 10:20 AM +0100 Tobias Ringstrom
> How about adding an ifdef CONFIG_SMP then
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The kernel driver APIs are designed so that SMP and UP cases are equally
> high-performance, and portable beyond the x86 platform.
>
> Pretty much all ISA and PCI drivers need to be portable and SMP safe...
> if not so, it's a bug. That said, there is c
Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> > > I have updated the dmfe.c network driver for 2.4.0-test by adding proper
> > > locking (I hope), and also made transmission much efficient.
> > Would you mind creating a separate patch that -just-
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> >
> > I have updated the dmfe.c network driver for 2.4.0-test by adding proper
> > locking (I hope), and also made transmission much efficient.
> >
> > I would appreciate any feedback from people using this driver, to confirm
>
Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
>
> I have updated the dmfe.c network driver for 2.4.0-test by adding proper
> locking (I hope), and also made transmission much efficient.
>
> I would appreciate any feedback from people using this driver, to confirm
> that I did not break it.
>
> It would also be great
Hello,
I'll double check the locking later today, but not sure about the
transmission changes.
Regards,
Frank
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--On Wednesday, November 15, 2000 9:34 PM +0100 Tobias Ringstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have updated the dmfe.c network driver for 2.4.0-test by adding pr
I have updated the dmfe.c network driver for 2.4.0-test by adding proper
locking (I hope), and also made transmission much efficient.
I would appreciate any feedback from people using this driver, to confirm
that I did not break it.
It would also be great if someone could take a look at the lock
11 matches
Mail list logo
