[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1320782818.2799.62.camel@bwh-desktop>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 20:06:58 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Taehun Kim <kth3321@...il.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <suhwan@...net.co.kr>,
<bongbong@...net.co.kr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] W5300: Add WIZnet W5300 Ethernet driver
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 19:09 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 23:37 +0900, Taehun Kim wrote:
[...]
> > +/* Default MAC address. */
> > +static __initdata u8 w5300_defmac[6] = {0x00, 0x08, 0xDC, 0xA0, 0x00, 0x01};
>
> This is not suitable as a default MAC address.
Really you mustn't use a fixed default at all.
[...]
> > +/* Interrupt Handler(ISR) */
> > +static irqreturn_t wiz_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_instance)
> > +{
> > + struct net_device *dev = dev_instance;
> > + struct wiz_private *wp = netdev_priv(dev);
> > + int timeout = 100;
> > + u16 isr, ssr;
> > + int s;
> > +
> > + isr = w5300_read(wp, IR);
> > +
> > + /* Completing all interrupts at a time. */
> > + while (isr && timeout--) {
>
> Why would you need to repeat this? You disable the interrupt
[...]
I'm not sure what I was starting to say there.
But I really don't see any justification for this loop. Perhaps it's
left over from a non-NAPI implementation? Just acknowledge the
interrupt, schedule NAPI as appropriate, and let the kernel call the
interrupt handler again if another interrupt is raised.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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