From: Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@de.ibm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:31:30 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
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
References: <200708281319.03903.ossthema@de.ibm.com> <46D51BD7.6040904@de.ibm.com> <20070829.012916.02298847.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070829.012916.02298847.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708291031.31923.ossthema@de.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1038
Lines: 26

On Wednesday 29 August 2007 10:29, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@de.ibm.com>
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:10:15 +0200
> 
> > In the end I want to reduce the CPU utilization. And one way
> > to do that is LRO which also works only well if there are more
> > then just a very few packets to aggregate. So at least our
> > driver (eHEA) would benefit from a mix of timer based polling
> > and plain NAPI (depending on load situations).
> > 
> > If there is no need for a generic mechanism for this kind of
> > network adapters, then we can just leave this to each device
> > driver.
> 
> No objections from me either way, if something works then
> fine.
> 
> Let's come back to this once you have a tested sample implementation
> that does what you want, ok?

Sounds good
-
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/