Re: [RFC] Some infrastructure for interrupt-less TX

2006-02-23 Thread Jörn Engel
On Thu, 23 February 2006 02:00:50 -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > > This breaks socket buffer accounting. > > That's why he's dropping the SKB sans the data. There doesn't appear to be any fundamental opposition. David, should I turn this mess into a decent patch, convert one driver, do some

Re: [RFC] Some infrastructure for interrupt-less TX

2006-02-23 Thread David S. Miller
From: Lennert Buytenhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:55:21 +0100 > This breaks socket buffer accounting. That's why he's dropping the SKB sans the data. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordom

Re: [RFC] Some infrastructure for interrupt-less TX

2006-02-23 Thread Jörn Engel
On Thu, 23 February 2006 10:55:21 +0100, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:00:32AM +0100, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > > I am assuming the real goal is avoiding interrupts when > > > transmit completions can be reported without them on a > > > reasonably periodic basis. > > > > Not

Re: [RFC] Some infrastructure for interrupt-less TX

2006-02-23 Thread Lennert Buytenhek
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:00:32AM +0100, Jörn Engel wrote: > > I am assuming the real goal is avoiding interrupts when > > transmit completions can be reported without them on a > > reasonably periodic basis. > > Not necessarily on a periodic basis. For some network driver I once > worked on, t

Re: [RFC] Some infrastructure for interrupt-less TX

2006-02-22 Thread Jörn Engel
On Wed, 22 February 2006 12:37:48 -0800, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Below patch wasn't even compile tested. I'm not involved > > with network drivers anymore, so my personal interest is > > fairly low. But since I firmly believe in the advantages and > > feasibility of

RE: [RFC] Some infrastructure for interrupt-less TX

2006-02-22 Thread Caitlin Bestler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Below patch wasn't even compile tested. I'm not involved > with network drivers anymore, so my personal interest is > fairly low. But since I firmly believe in the advantages and > feasibility of interrupt-less TX, there should at least be an > ugly broken patch to flam

[RFC] Some infrastructure for interrupt-less TX

2006-02-22 Thread Jörn Engel
Below patch wasn't even compile tested. I'm not involved with network drivers anymore, so my personal interest is fairly low. But since I firmly believe in the advantages and feasibility of interrupt-less TX, there should at least be an ugly broken patch to flame about. Go for it, tell me how st