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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 20:45:14 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>, Po Liu <po.liu@....com>, Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>, Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com> Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 01:51:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 01:19, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> > > Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 00:03:39 +0300 > > > > > As to why this doesn't go to tc but to ethtool: why would it go to tc? > > > > Maybe you can't %100 duplicate the on-the-wire special format and > > whatever, but the queueing behavior ABSOLUTELY you can emulate in > > software. > > > > And then you have the proper hooks added for HW offload which can > > do the on-the-wire stuff. > > > > That's how we do these things, not with bolted on ethtool stuff. > > When talking about frame preemption in the way that it is defined in > 802.1Qbu and 802.3br, it says or assumes nothing about queuing. It > describes the fact that there are 2 MACs per interface, 1 MAC dealing > with some traffic classes and the other dealing with the rest. I did not follow the previous discussion, but i assume you talked about modelling it in Linux as two MACs? Why was that approach not followed? Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists