[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130712180116.21176.qmail@science.horizon.com>
Date: 12 Jul 2013 14:01:16 -0400
From: "George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To: grantgrundler@...il.com, linux@...izon.com
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, grundler@...isc-linux.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] tulip: Support for byte queue limits
> Hi George,
> While you are right that functionally it doesn't matter, my preference
> would be to have nothing between the wmb() and iowrite() that kicks
> off the TX. This marginally helps kick off the TX process consistently
> slightly sooner. On modern HW, probably irrelevant, but not on the HW
> these chips are used on.
I'll revise it. It just made sense to me to put it next to the other
bookkeeping line of tp->cur_tx++. Should I move them both below the
iowrite()? As in:
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/tulip_core.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/tulip_core.c
@@ -702,11 +702,11 @@ tulip_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
tp->tx_ring[entry].status = cpu_to_le32(DescOwned);
wmb();
- tp->cur_tx++;
-
/* Trigger an immediate transmit demand. */
iowrite32(0, tp->base_addr + CSR1);
+ tp->cur_tx++;
+ netdev_sent_queue(dev, skb->len);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tp->lock, flags);
return NETDEV_TX_OK;
> Lastly, given I haven't powered up a system in two years which has
> tulip, any one want to take over maintainer for tulip driver?
> It's basically obsolete with a few rare patches like this one coming in.
I'm not up to it myself, sorry.
--
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