Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20070827.133721.59473971.davem@davemloft.net>
To: ossthema@de.ibm.com
Cc: jchapman@katalix.com, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, akepner@sgi.com,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, raisch@de.ibm.com, themann@de.ibm.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, meder@de.ibm.com,
       tklein@de.ibm.com, stefan.roscher@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <200708271147.01890.ossthema@de.ibm.com>
References: <46D1D634.7060007@katalix.com>
	<20070826.185815.93042514.davem@davemloft.net>
	<200708271147.01890.ossthema@de.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 763
Lines: 18

From: Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:47:01 +0200

> So the question is simply: Do we want drivers that need (benefit
> from) a timer based polling support to implement their own timers
> each, or should there be a generic support?

I'm trying to figure out how an hrtimer implementation would
even work.

Would you start the timer from the chip interrupt handler?  If so,
that's taking two steps backwards as you've already taken all of the
overhead of running the interrupt handler.
-
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/