netdev - Re: [PATCH] Intel IXP4xx network drivers v.3

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 May 2007 16:08:35 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
Cc:	Michael-Luke Jones <mlj28@....ac.uk>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	ARM Linux Mailing List 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel IXP4xx network drivers v.3 - QMGR

Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org> writes:

> The way I see it, that means that you do want to scale back your
> other SRAM allocations if you know that you're going to need a lot
> of SRAM (say, for ethernet RX/TX queues.)

Yep, I will then add "queue_size" parameter to the platform data.
Or something like that.

> Or you can put this knowledge in the board support code (cleaner, IMHO.)

Sure.

> That way, you can _guarantee_ that you'll always have enough SRAM
> to be able to use the functionality that is exposed on the board you
> are running on (which is a desirable property, IMHO), which is
> something that you can't achieve with an allocator, as far as I can
> see.

I'd have to put SRAM address in the board code instead. Certainly
not required at this point, and perhaps it will be never needed.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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