Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.20-pre sundance.c update

From: Jeff Garzik <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:11:41 -0400

Jason Lunz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 12:25AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>It still has several flaws that were pointed out, but this is the base 
>>from which I would like testing and patching to proceed.  (also 
>>hopefully the flaws are minor in terms of general operation)
> 
> 
> what's the point of moving rx handling into rx_poll then running it in a
> tasklet? I've tested an older variant of that scheme from D-Link and it
> doesn't perform as well as my patch. It looks to me like an attempt to
> keep this version synced with the NAPI version of the driver, but it
> doesn't actually work very well.

This is a merge and test point.  The whole interrupt handler path is 
getting updated after this.  (but thanks for the feedback, it is noted)

> The functional part of my patch was just taking the tx handling from
> d-link's driver and ditching the rx part.  That and merging in the
> cleanups from Becker's driver; most notably ignoring the broken
> IntrRxDone bit.

Maybe you could show me that in broken-out patches :)