From: [email protected] (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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]