Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:27:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: harti@freebsd.org Cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Subject: Re: realtime problem Message-ID: <20030413212354.U93049@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20030411094125.P774@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <20030409114957.GN83126@cicely9.cicely.de> <20030410181322.W774@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030411094125.P774@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Harti Brandt wrote: > So, of course, it never takes the early return. When I remove the first > assignment it seems to work. In this case I get a mean time for > xl_status_update of 205usec which is ok I suppose. That sounds like what I was seeing back when I was playing with the code. Not perfect, but a heck of a lot better than how it was before. If the logic in the patch is munged, it's probably because I took a snapshot of my work in an non-optimal state... nonetheless, the idea is clear, and should apply to all PHYs equally well. I encourage you to investigate further. :) I would take another look at the code, but I'm bound and determined to finish my mbuf testing / finding that if_xl-related panic before I get sidetracked again. (And I already have a great diversion planned for myself once this gets done.) Good luck, Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030413212354.U93049>