Re: [RFC net-next 3/4] gianfar: Separate out the Rx and Tx coalescing functions

[Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/8/2012 6:44 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [[RFC net-next 3/4] gianfar: Separate out the Rx and Tx coalescing functions] On 08/08/2012 (Wed 15:26) Claudiu Manoil wrote:
>
> > Split the coalescing programming support by Rx and Tx h/w queues, in order to
> > introduce a separate NAPI for the Tx confirmation path (next patch). This way,
> > the Rx processing path will handle the coalescing settings for the Rx queues
> > only, resp. the Tx confirmation processing path will handle the Tx queues.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c |   36 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >   1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
> > index ddd350a..919acb3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
> > @@ -1794,8 +1794,8 @@ void gfar_start(struct net_device *dev)
> >   	dev->trans_start = jiffies; /* prevent tx timeout */
> >   }
> >
> > -void gfar_configure_coalescing(struct gfar_private *priv,
> > -			       unsigned long tx_mask, unsigned long rx_mask)
> > +static inline void gfar_configure_tx_coalescing(struct gfar_private *priv,
>
> I believe the preference is to not specify inline when all the chunks in
> play are present in the one C file -- i.e. let gcc figure it out.  Same
> for the Rx instance below.
>
> P.
> --
I agree with you.
thanks


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html