[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACKFLikoKktanhxgaMeSA0NGmA6RiaBnxnCXUYfcssYWefdMVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:15:35 -0700
From: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>
Cc: skallam <siva.kallam@...adcom.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Prashant Sreedharan <prashant@...adcom.com>,
Satish Baddipadige <satish.baddipadige@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] tg3: Fix for diasllow rx coalescing time to be 0
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com> wrote:
>
> Should anything then happen with:
>
> /* No rx interrupts will be generated if both are zero */
> if ((ec->rx_coalesce_usecs == 0) &&
> (ec->rx_max_coalesced_frames == 0))
> return -EINVAL;
>
>
> which is the next block of code? The logic there seems to suggest that it
> was intended to be able to have an rx_coalesce_usecs of 0 and rely on packet
> arrival to trigger an interrupt. Presumably setting rx_max_coalesced_frames
> to 1 to disable interrupt coalescing.
>
I remember writing this block of code over 10 years ago for early
generations of the chip. Newer chips seem to behave differently and
rx_coalesce_usecs can never be zero. So this block can be removed now
that the condition can never be true. We should probably leave a
comment there for future reference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists