[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2029402.2DirnyqmAY@alaris>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:37:03 +0100
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc: Sucheta Chakraborty <sucheta.chakraborty@...gic.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Dept-HSGLinuxNICDev@...gic.com,
gregory.v.rose@...el.com, linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com,
Ariel.Elior@...gic.com, amirv@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/1] net: Add support to configure SR-IOV VF minimum and maximum Tx rate through ip tool.
On Monday 24 of March 2014 18:55:00 Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> Also, this special-casing of -1 isn't documented anywhere. Is it even
> necessary? If userland needs to set just one limit, it can read the
> existing limits and set both.
Wouldn't this open a window for a race if one process wanted to change
one limit and another process wanted to change the other at the same
time? Such scenario doesn't sound very realistic but our customers
taught me that things I don't find very realistic tend to be used quite
frequently by them.
On the other hand, if changing only one limit is going to be common, it
might be more appropriate to add IFLA_VF_TX_MIN_RATE instead and always
pass the minimum and maximum rate separately (and pass only one if only
one is going to be changed).
Michal Kubecek
--
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