[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250213130003.nxt2ev47a6ppqzrq@skbuf>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:00:03 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: "Abdul Rahim, Faizal" <faizal.abdul.rahim@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
Xiaolei Wang <xiaolei.wang@...driver.com>,
Suraj Jaiswal <quic_jsuraj@...cinc.com>,
Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>,
Choong Yong Liang <yong.liang.choong@...ux.intel.com>,
Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>,
Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/9] igc: Add support for Frame Preemption
feature in IGC
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 08:54:18PM +0800, Abdul Rahim, Faizal wrote:
> > Well, my idea was to move the current mqprio offload implementation from
> > legacy TSN Tx mode to the normal TSN Tx mode. Then, taprio and mqprio
> > can share the same code (with or without fpe). I have a draft patch
> > ready for that. What do you think about it?
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> I’m okay with including it in this series and testing fpe + mqprio, but I’m
> not sure if others might be concerned about adding different functional
> changes in this fpe series.
>
> Hi Vladimir,
> Any thoughts on this ?
Well, what do you think of my split proposal from here, essentially
drawing the line for the first patch set at just ethtool mm?
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250213110653.iqy5magn27jyfnwh@skbuf/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists