[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1330997177.3022.51.camel@deadeye>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:26:17 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
<eilong@...adcom.com>, <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kevin.wells@....com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <arnd@...db.de>,
<baruch@...s.co.il>, <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lpc32xx: Added ethernet driver
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 16:49 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 22:45 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 22:40 +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
> > [...]
>
> ...
>
> > > + /* Copy packet from buffer */
> > > + memcpy(prdbuf,
> > > + pldat->rx_buff_v[rxconsidx], len);
> > > +
> > > + /* Pass to upper layer */
> > > + skb->protocol = eth_type_trans(skb, ndev);
> > > + netif_rx(skb);
> > > + ndev->last_rx = jiffies;
> >
> > Drivers don't need to set last_rx any more.
>
> Also, a NAPI driver should call netif_receive_skb() instead of
> netif_rx()
>
> netif_rx() is more expensive because of additional queue, while
> netif_receive_skb() directly calls the upper stacks.
Yes, but not until the poll function is changed to enable IRQs.
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