[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKHjkj=rJpPsusq5QjY-9hASz0bBGvA04+ZBaY5J=OqoWzgZmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:17:36 +0200
From: Eran Ben Elisha <eranlinuxmellanox@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Gal Pressman <galp@...lanox.com>,
Ariel Almog <ariela@...lanox.com>,
Inbar Karmy <inbark@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>> What do other vendors support? Time? Number of pause frames sent?
>
> So i checked a few Marvell Switches. You can also specify a time. It
> is a little bit more complex than that, since the units of time depend
> on the link speed. But converting a time in ms to what the register
> wants is possible.
>
> So i'm thinking rather than a poorly defined 'Auto', passing a time
> would be better.
>
> Andrew
Hi Andrew,
We were using the term 'Auto' for few reasons.
1. Not confusing the user with the question of what is the correct
value (100 ms is good? Bad?)
2. Allowing exposure of new mechanism in the future without user need
to change its commands
3. Letting the device to decide on best approach according to its
capabilities, link speed, etc.
Our initial thought was to expose with timeout as you suggested, but
it felt very restrictive due to the reasons I mentioned.
Eran
Powered by blists - more mailing lists