netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] ethtool: Correct description of 'max_coalesced

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	bhutchings@...arflare.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eli@....mellanox.co.il
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] ethtool: Correct description of
 'max_coalesced_frames' fields

From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:07:47 +0100

> The current descriptions state that these fields specify 'How many
> packets to delay ... after a packet ...' which implies that the
> hardware should wait for (max_coalesced_frames + 1) completions before
> generating an interrupt.  It is also stated that setting both this
> field and the corresponding 'coalesce_usecs' field to 0 is invalid.
> Together, this implies that the hardware must always be configured
> to delay a completion IRQ for at least 1 usec or 1 more completion.
> 
> I believe that the addition of 1 is not intended, and David Miller
> confirms that the original implementation (in tg3) does not do this.
> Clarify the descriptions of these fields to avoid this interpretation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>

Applied.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html