> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:31:06 -0800
> Niranjana Vishwanathapura <nvishwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +
>> +static DECLARE_TASKLET(smd_net_data_tasklet, smd_net_data_handler, 0);
>> +
>> +static void smd_net_notify(void *_dev, unsigned event)
>> +{
>> + if (event != SMD_EVENT_DATA)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + smd_net_data_tasklet.data = (unsigned long) _dev;
>> +
>> + tasklet_schedule(&smd_net_data_tasklet);
>> +}
>> +
>
> Rather than having private tasklet, maybe using NAPI
> would be better?
>
> Also since you are already in tasklet, no need to call netif_rx()
> when receiving packet; instead use netif_receive_skb directly.
>
> --
>
NAPI will not buy much as the SMD transport doesn't provide a machanism to
stop interrupts. I will consider using NAPI in the future (it requires
performance testing on lot of different targets).
However, I can replace netif_rx() by netif_receive_skb() and send out new
patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
