[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47E9BF83.8070006@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:14:11 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
To: yshi <yang.shi@...driver.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improvev netconsole support for RTL8139 NIC driver
yshi wrote:
> David Miller 写道:
>> From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
>> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:23:24 -0400
>>
>>
>>> This is bogus -- you should never need to slow down the hot path in
>>> such a way.
>>>
>>
>> Slow down in what way? Even on x86 saving the flags is just
>> about as expensive as a plain sti/cli.
>>
>> I would in fact prefer to see drivers unconditionally use
>> spin_lock_irqsave() et al. in the interrupt handler, for
>> consistency.
>>
> Yes, I agree. Many NIC drivers do the same thing, like Gianfar, E1000, etc.
No, I just looked. Neither gianfar nor e1000 nor e1000e does this.
In fact, gfar_transmit() is precisely an example of what I'm talking
about: you only need to use spin_lock() there.
Jeff
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists