From: Casey Leedom Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:53:39 +0000 (+0000) Subject: cxgb4vf: Remove obsolete comment about the lack of a TX Timer Callback X-Git-Tag: v2.6.36-rc1~571^2~394 X-Git-Url: https://openfabrics.org/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=64bb336c8f4de8b281d0d44f2ec2c900b9b28466;p=~shefty%2Frdma-dev.git cxgb4vf: Remove obsolete comment about the lack of a TX Timer Callback Remove obsolete comment about the lack of a TX Timer Callback -- which we now _do_ have ... Signed-off-by: Casey Leedom Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- diff --git a/drivers/net/cxgb4vf/sge.c b/drivers/net/cxgb4vf/sge.c index f857d20e1d3..5c4a81dae19 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