netdev - Re: [net-next patch v2] bnx2x: Add run-time CNIC support

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]

Message-Id: <20120710.060616.2081630953053267615.davem@davemloft.net>
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