linux-kernel - Re: arm: Optimization for ethernet MAC handling at91

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4B4CA4E5.7030800@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:35:49 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	James Kosin <JKosin@...comgrp.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: arm: Optimization for ethernet MAC handling at91_ether.c

CC to netdev

Le 12/01/2010 16:39, James Kosin a écrit :
> Everyone,
> 
> Since, a AT91_EMAC_TUND only happens when the transmitter is unable to
> transfer the frame in time for a frame to be sent.  It makes sense to
> RETRY the packet in this condition in the ISR.
> Or would this overcomplicate a simple task?
>                 ... see below ...
> 
...

> 
> ...
> I do know there needs to be a bit more code then to handle the
> successful case below this; but, this is enough to understand what I am
> talking about.  The UNDERRUN error should happen infrequently and in
> ideal circumstances not happen at all.
>  


If this happens once in a while, why do you want driver to retry the transmit ?
--
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/