Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:33:42 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Code review Message-ID: <200808261033.43091.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20080826.012357.1973601375.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20080825.002316.-1548243307.imp@bsdimp.com> <200808251037.11126.jhb@freebsd.org> <20080826.012357.1973601375.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 26 August 2008 03:23:57 am M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200808251037.11126.jhb@freebsd.org> > John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> writes: > : On Monday 25 August 2008 02:23:16 am M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > I did this a few years ago when trying to track down a problem with > : > some realtek network chips that I was having problems with at Timing > : > Solutions. I'd like to get this into the tree, since it was helpful > : > then. > : > > : > Comments? > : > : When you are running a faster tick I think want to only call the mii and > : watchdog stuff once a second still. I know this will break the tx watchdog > : for example. Since it's kind of tricky to manage that I think you should > : just use a separate timer for the twister stuff. > > Is this in general, or do you have a specific problem in mind with the > rl change? In general, we're not transmitting during this exercise > and it happens only once... Is it worth the extra hair? Worried more about the general case. Is mii_tick() going to be ok with being invoked more often? Also, if you are only doing this during attach or interface up, it might be simpler to have a private timer (shoot, if it's during attach the 'struct callout' can be on the stack) just for this bit. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200808261033.43091.jhb>