[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB5807794955@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 18:09:11 +0000
From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next 07/12] ixgbe: Enable timesync clock-out feature for
PPS support on X540
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcochran@...il.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:36 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E
> Cc: Kirsher, Jeffrey T; davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> gospo@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com
> Subject: Re: [net-next 07/12] ixgbe: Enable timesync clock-out feature for PPS
> support on X540
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:54:52PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > > Since this function is called in every interrupt, I would check this
> > > flag first thing.
> > >
> > Not sure what you mean? Check this before checking the other interrupts?
> > I can do that.
>
> I only meant that, assuming that the other interrupt sources are much more
> frequent than the PPS, the normal case will be that the PPS flag is not set.
>
> It would be more efficient (that is, shorter ISR code path in normal
> case) to check the flag first, perhaps like this.
>
> ixgbe_intr()
> {
> ...
> #ifdef CONFIG_IXGBE_PTP
> if (eicr & IXGBE_EICR_TIMESYNC)
> ixgbe_ptp_check_pps_event(adapter, eicr); #endif
> ...
> }
Ok. This makes sense. :) Check the flag before checking the hardware type.
- Jake
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists