On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 12:04:01PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:40AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> > On a related issue, I think the rng interface is not very suitable
> > for chips like HIFN that have a constant random bandwidth, it would
> > make a lot more sense to return the time to wait to the core, instead
> > of waiting 10us in all cases. 256 cycles at a speed of 266MHz comes
> > down to 0.96us, so we're waiting about 10 times as long as necessary.
> > Since its busy waiting anyway, I'd think that from a performance POV
> > constant polling or returning the exact amount of time would be more
> > reasonable.
>
> I agree, a better interface would be to let the hardware do the
> blocking where necessary.
I meant the hardware driver of course.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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]
