[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061220152701.GA22928@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:27:01 +0100
From: Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Network drivers that don't suspend on interface down
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:38:51PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> [1] What kind of latency would be allowed? Would an implementation be
> allowed to power up the phy say once per minute or once per 5 minutes to
> see if there is link? The implementation could do this progressively;
> first poll every X seconds, then after an hour, every minute etc.
I suspect that the hard maximum latency is the time needed by the user
to start the network himself, be it opening a root xterm and doing the
appropriate invocation or pulling up and clicking where appropriate in
a GUI. That's probably around 5 seconds. Over that, and they won't
even notice there is an autodetection running.
But still, 5 seconds is probably too much too, because it's going to
look like it's unreliable. The user has to see something happen
within half-a-second or so, otherwise he's going to start doing it by
hand. The "see" part is distribution/desktop-dependant and not the
kernel problem, but the top chrono happens when the rj45 is plugged
in.
OG.
-
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