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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:06:16 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: eilong@...adcom.com Cc: meravs@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dmitry@...adcom.com Subject: Re: [net-next patch v2] bnx2x: Add run-time CNIC support From: "Eilon Greenstein" <eilong@...adcom.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:41:29 +0300 > OK. Since it blocks the ability to add SR-IOV support, is it acceptable > to submit it as constant enabled for PF and disabled for VF (SR-IOV)? You're not describing to me why you guys are turning on features like the CNIC mode before you necessarily have any users of that feature. Why can't you turn CNIC off at the start, and if a CNIC user actually arrives and is activated, reset the entire chip and put it into CNIC mode? And if CNIC being on is such a latency killer, why in the world haven't you done things more reasonably like that from the very beginning? Why are you making it so that lower latency with your chips is only available to a group of users who are effectively statistically insignificant? -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists