On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:31:12 -0700 Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen> The undo should really be handled by the caller, not in > Stephen> netif_rx_reschedule. The existing interface assumes you > Stephen> have already deducted N from your quota and so it needs > Stephen> to be put back. > > makes sense -- especially since the caller probably also deducted N > from *budget, and netif_rx_reschedule() doesn't touch that. Changing it wouldn't be hard with only a couple of users. > > Stephen> If poll is already scheduled, then after leaving this > Stephen> poll call, another will occur. If the poll routine just > Stephen> went ahead and rescanned that would work as well. The > Stephen> important part is not to leave the poll routine without > Stephen> being in one of these states: * all work is done, and > Stephen> hardware is empty and/or will interrupt for more. * some > Stephen> work was done, and device left on poll_list with softirq > Stephen> raised > > But how does the return value of netif_rx_reschedule() help anything? > It either tells you that a poll was already scheduled, or that it > succeeded in scheduling a poll. In either case another poll will > happen. So why should the caller care? > > Or is it possible that netif_rx_reschedule() returning 0 might mean > that it failed to reschedule the poll routine? But even if that's > true, how can the caller use that -- 0 might mean the poll was already > rescheduled, and it might mean that the poll couldn't be resheduled, > but there's no way for the caller to know which. > > - R. The return value doesn't really help. It should just be a void function, the resulting state is the same in either case. -- Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
