Subject: PATCH 1/2] Remove obsolete comment about the lack of a TX Timer Callback -- which we ...

From: Casey Leedom <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:53:39 -0700

>>From fab966adc65f1b500e261867b3cb26bf35482b36 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Casey Leedom <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:14:38 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Remove obsolete comment about the lack of a TX Timer Callback -- which we
 now _do_ have ...

Signed-off-by: Casey Leedom <[email-masked]>
---
 drivers/net/cxgb4vf/sge.c |   13 +------------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/cxgb4vf/sge.c b/drivers/net/cxgb4vf/sge.c
index f857d20..5c4a81d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/cxgb4vf/sge.c
+++ b/drivers/net/cxgb4vf/sge.c
@@ -1301,18 +1301,7 @@ int t4vf_eth_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
 		 * wait for acks to really free up the data the extra memory
 		 * is even less.  On the positive side we run the destructors
 		 * on the sending CPU rather than on a potentially different
-		 * completing CPU, usually a good thing.  We also run them
-		 * without holding our TX queue lock, unlike what
-		 * reclaim_completed_tx() would otherwise do.
-		 *
-		 * XXX Actually the above is somewhat incorrect since we don't
-		 * XXX yet have a periodic timer which reclaims TX Descriptors.
-		 * XXX What's our plan for this?
-		 * XXX
-		 * XXX Also, we don't currently have a TX Queue lock but
-		 * XXX that may be the result of not having any current
-		 * XXX asynchronous path for reclaiming completed TX
-		 * XXX Descriptors ...
+		 * completing CPU, usually a good thing.
 		 *
 		 * Run the destructor before telling the DMA engine about the
 		 * packet to make sure it doesn't complete and get freed
-- 
1.7.0.4