On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:44 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:45:40 +0200 > > > Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 schrieb Rusty Russell: > > > +static void receive_skb(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb, > > [...] > > > + netif_rx(skb); > > > > In the NAPI case, we should use netif_receive_skb, no? > > NAPI doesn't make sense for virtual devices, my Sun LDOM nework > driver won't use NAPI either. > > It's also too cumbersome to use NAPI with the way virtualized > network drivers work (multiple ports, each with an interrupt > source, not just one) until the NAPI split patches are ported > and applied upstream and that won't be for a while. Dave, I think you're the only one (so far?) with multiple irqs. It's not clear that guest-controlled interrupt mitigation is the best approach for virtual devices, but at the moment it doesn't hurt. Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
