On 10/8/19 12:32 PM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > On di, 08 okt 2019 10:32:18 +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> On 10/8/19 10:24 AM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: >>>>>> taking up Kurt's work. I've cleaned up the rx-offload and c_can patches >>>>>> a bit. Untested as I don't have any hardware at hand. >>>>> >>>>> I had created equivalent code (skb_queue in isr, skb_dequeue in napi >>>>> handler) running on a 4.9 kernel since some days now. I didn't observe >>>>> any problems yet. >>>> >>>> This is based on the patches you send around. >>>> Anyways can you send me your currently working version? >>> >>> I know. My first attempt was to backport rx-offload, but this was more >>> work than expected, so I created this patch, doing the skb_queue inside >>> c_can driver directly. I wrote that patch with the latest rx-offload.c >>> side-by-side. >>> >>> I just wrote it this way quickly so I could go ahead and test the mower, >>> upgrading to a more recent kernel is scheduled within a few months or >>> so. >> >> Ok, so which variant should be integrated into the kernel? > > The maintenance of a linear skb_queue by itself felt not that complicated. > The napi part however requires more attention. > > My ad-hoc skb_queue implementation feels dirty given the rx-offload work. > The risk of having duplicated napi-handlers convinced me to use > rx-offload, and I'm still convinced of that. > > So I vote for the rx-offload variant. Tnx. Can you test the c_can branch from linux-can-next? > As said, I created my ad-hoc skb_queue because rx-offload wasn't in v4.9. IC Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
