[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100302140233.GA14488@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:02:33 +0300
From: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
To: Kumar Gopalpet-B05799 <B05799@...escale.com>
Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: Gianfar driver failing on MPC8641D based board
Hi!
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:05:32AM +0530, Kumar Gopalpet-B05799 wrote:
[...]
> Understood, and thanks for the explanation. Am I correct in saying that
> this is
> due to the out-of-order execution capability on powerpc ?
Nope, that was just a logic issue in the driver.
Though, with the patch, the eieio() is needed so that compiler (or CPU)
won't reorder lstatus and skbuff writes.
> I have one more question, why don't we use use atomic_t for num_txbdfree
> and
> completely do away with spin_locks in gfar_clean_tx_ring() and
> gfar_start_xmit().
> In an non-SMP, scenario I would feel there is absolutely no requirement
> of spin_locks
> and in case of SMP atomic operation would be much more safer on powerpc
> rather than spin_locks.
>
> What is your suggestion ?
I think that's a good idea.
However, in start_xmit() we'll have to keep the spinlock anyway
since it also protects from gfar_error(), which can modify
regs->tstat.
Thanks!
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
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