linux-kernel - Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070827.133721.59473971.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ossthema@...ibm.com
Cc:	jchapman@...alix.com, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	akepner@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, raisch@...ibm.com,
	themann@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, meder@...ibm.com, tklein@...ibm.com,
	stefan.roscher@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

From: Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@...ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:47:01 +0200

> So the question is simply: Do we want drivers that need (benefit
> from) a timer based polling support to implement their own timers
> each, or should there be a generic support?

I'm trying to figure out how an hrtimer implementation would
even work.

Would you start the timer from the chip interrupt handler?  If so,
that's taking two steps backwards as you've already taken all of the
overhead of running the interrupt handler.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/