From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:01:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:01:37 -0400 Received: from berta.E-Technik.Uni-Dortmund.DE ([129.217.182.12]:56584 "HELO kt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:01:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:01:35 +0200 From: Wolfgang Wegner To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: 2.4.18 orinoco.c __orinoco_ev_rx question Message-ID: <20020528160135.D24097@bigmac.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, after sorting out my sk_buff problem [turned out to be problems with pcmcia-cs-3.1.33's own include files, which throw away some of the kernel's config options, thus affecting struct sk_buff declaration] i am now investigating some things in orinoco.c of 2.4.18, which seems almost identical to the one from pcmcia-cs My concern is, if it is really necessary to do the whole rx work in the interrupt handler, or a bottom half could be used here? I ask because like this, the interrupt is set for about 800us in a whole-frame (MTU) receive, which IMHO is not really desirable. I have to admit i still did not really understand the use of FIDs, so i am not sure, but couldn't this be taken out of the interrupt handler itself? (Of course, i can simply implement and try it, but as i am absolutely not aware about the use of FIDs, i do not want to risk introducing any nice subtle bugs...) Regards, Wolfgang