Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 May 2002 13:28:22 +1000 | From | David Gibson <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.18 orinoco.c __orinoco_ev_rx question |
| |
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:01:35PM +0200, Wolfgang Wegner wrote: > Hi all, > > after sorting out my sk_buff problem [turned out to be problems with > pcmcia-cs-3.1.33's own include files, which throw away some of the kernel's > config options, thus affecting struct sk_buff declaration] i am now > investigating some things in orinoco.c of 2.4.18, which seems almost > identical to the one from pcmcia-cs > > My concern is, if it is really necessary to do the whole rx work in the > interrupt handler, or a bottom half could be used here? > I ask because like this, the interrupt is set for about 800us in a > whole-frame (MTU) receive, which IMHO is not really desirable. I have to > admit i still did not really understand the use of FIDs, so i am not sure, > but couldn't this be taken out of the interrupt handler itself?
No it doesn't have to be done in the interrupt handler, it could be done in a bottom half. However essentially every other network driver does all the Rx work (up to netif_rx()) in the hard irq, so I'm disinclined to do it otherwise.
> (Of course, i can simply implement and try it, but as i am absolutely > not aware about the use of FIDs, i do not want to risk introducing any > nice subtle bugs...)
-- David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a david@gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and | wrong. -- H.L. Mencken http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |