From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:55:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:55:10 -0400 Received: from cs.columbia.edu ([128.59.16.20]:37010 "EHLO cs.columbia.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:55:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:55:28 -0400 Message-Id: <200110041855.f94ItSH11421@buggy.badula.org> From: Ion Badulescu To: jamal Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.8-ac9 (i586)) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 07:54:19 -0400 (EDT), jamal wrote: > Has nothing to do with specific hardware although i see your point. > send me an eepro and i'll at least add hardware flow control for you. > The API is simple, its up to the driver maintainers to use. This > discussion is good to make people aware of those drivers. A bit of documentation for the hardware flow control API would help as well. The API might be fine and dandy, but if all you have is a couple of modified drivers -- some of which are not even in the standard kernel -- then you can bet not many driver writers are going to even be aware of it, let alone care to implement it. For instance: in 2.2.19, the help text for CONFIG_NET_HW_FLOWCONTROL says only tulip supports it in the standard kernel -- yet I can't find that support anywhere in drivers/net/*.c, tulip.c included. In 2.4.10 tulip finally supports it (and I'm definitely going to take a closer look), but that's about it. And tulip is definitely the wrong example to pick if you want a nice and clean model for your driver. Ion -- It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.