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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 16:09:06 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <>
Cc:     David Miller <>,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

On Mon, 18 May 2020 16:05:08 -0700 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <> writes:
> >> That was the (only?) strong argument in favor of having frame preemption
> >> in the TC side when this was last discussed.
> >> 
> >> We can have a hybrid solution, we can move the express/preemptible per
> >> queue map to mqprio/taprio/whatever. And have the more specific
> >> configuration knobs, minimum fragment size, etc, in ethtool.
> >> 
> >> What do you think?  
> >
> > Does the standard specify minimum fragment size as a global MAC setting?  
> Yes, it's a per-MAC setting, not per-queue. 

If standard defines it as per-MAC and we can reasonably expect vendors
won't try to "add value" and make it per queue (unlikely here AFAIU),
then for this part ethtool configuration seems okay to me.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists