[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <669d3b51-d068-8816-37d1-dab2ffadb250@omp.ru>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 19:44:21 +0300
From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
To: Paul Barker <paul.barker.ct@...renesas.com>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
<kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se>
CC: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>, Claudiu Beznea
<claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>, Yoshihiro Shimoda
<yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 2/7] net: ravb: Consider busypolling status
when re-enabling interrupts
On 5/28/24 6:03 PM, Paul Barker wrote:
> Make use of the busypolling status returned from NAPI complete to decide
My spellchecker/translator trip over "busypolling" -- consider using
"busy-polling"?
And did you actually mean napi_complete_done()?
> if interrupts shall be re-enabled or not. This is useful to reduce the
> interrupt overhead.
>
> While at it switch to using napi_complete_done() as it take into account
Takes.
> the work done when providing the busypolling status.
Again, "busy-polling"?
> Signed-off-by: Paul Barker <paul.barker.ct@...renesas.com>
[...]
MBR, Sergey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists