[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60D361FF.70905@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 19:31:59 +0300
From: Nikolai Zhubr <zhubr.2@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
CC: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: Realtek 8139 problem on 486.
22.06.2021 22:26, Arnd Bergmann:
[...]
> As I said before, I still think we should also merge the 8139 driver patch,
> probably without that loop. It's not great, but I'm much more confident
> I understand what that does and that the patched version is better than
> the current code.
Yes, the 'poll' approach apparently works stable and does not cause any
measurable performance decrease. But it would need some carefull
cleanup/review, especially WRT locking. Now that all real event handling
work is happening in the poll function, it still has to be protected
against the (potentially also long-running) reset function which in
current design can be called e.g. from a different thread due to tx
timeout, and this does not look good, but it is a bit beyond my
capability to arrange it better. Besides, the idea was to keep the fix
simple and avoid a massive rework...
Thank you,
Regards,
Nikolai
>
> Arnd
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists