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

[David Miller]

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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/