Re: [PATCH 1/2]: powerpc/cell spidernet bottom half

From: David Miller
Date: Wed Aug 16 2006 - 19:30:19 EST

From: linas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Linas Vepstas)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:30:28 -0500

> Why would you want o do this? It seems like a cruddier strategy
> than what we can already do (which is to never get an transmit
> interrupt, as long as the kernel can shove data into the device fast
> enough to keep the queue from going empty.) The whole *point* of a
> low-watermark interrupt is to never have to actually get the interrupt,
> if the rest of the system is on its toes and is supplying data fast
> enough.

As long as TX packets get freed within a certain latency
boundary, this kind of scheme should be fine.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at