[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B707F@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:57:43 -0000
From: "David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: HÃ¥vard Skinnemoen <havard@...nnemoen.net>
Cc: "Nicolas Ferre" <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
<patrice.vilchez@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<manabian@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 06/10] net/macb: clean up ring buffer logic
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:12 AM, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> >> Instead of masking head and tail every time we increment them, just let them
> >> wrap through UINT_MAX and mask them when subscripting. Add simple accessor
> >> functions to do the subscripting properly to minimize the chances of messing
> >> this up.
> > ...
> >> +static unsigned int macb_tx_ring_avail(struct macb *bp)
> >> +{
> >> + return TX_RING_SIZE - (bp->tx_head - bp->tx_tail);
> >> +}
> >
> > That one doesn't look quite right to me.
> > Surely it should be masking with 'TX_RING_SIZE - 1'
>
> Why is that? head and tail can never be more than TX_RING_SIZE apart,
> so it shouldn't make any difference.
It's a ring buffer (I presume) the pointers can be in either order.
David
--
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