Neil Horman wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:28:28AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
Neil Horman wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:05:11PM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
Damn, This is what happens when I try to do things too quickly. I missed one
spot in my last patch where I replaced skb with rx_skb. Its not critical, but
it should improve sis900 performance by quite a bit. This applies on top of the
last two patches. Sorry about that.
Thanks & Regards
Neil
Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sis900.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/sis900.c b/drivers/net/sis900.c
index 7e44939..db59dce 100644
--- a/drivers/net/sis900.c
+++ b/drivers/net/sis900.c
@@ -1790,7 +1790,7 @@ static int sis900_rx(struct net_device *net_dev)
/* give the socket buffer to upper layers */
rx_skb = sis_priv->rx_skbuff[entry];
skb_put(rx_skb, rx_size);
- skb->protocol = eth_type_trans(rx_skb, net_dev);
+ rx_skb->protocol = eth_type_trans(rx_skb, net_dev);
netif_rx(rx_skb);
/* some network statistics */
My system also boots OK after I add this patch. Can't tell whether it's
improved the performance or not.
Peter
--
Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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/
