netdev - Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 14:32:31 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To:     Joergen Andreasen <joergen.andreasen@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...el.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, vladimir.oltean@....com, po.liu@....com,
        m-karicheri2@...com, Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

Joergen Andreasen <joergen.andreasen@...rochip.com> writes:

>> So I thought I was better to let the driver decide what values are
>> acceptable.
>> 
>> This is a good question for people working with other hardware.
>> 
>
> I think it's most intuitive to use the values for AddFragSize as described in
> 802.3br (N = 0, 1, 2, 3).
> You will anyway have to use one of these values when you want to expose the
> requirements of your receiver through LLDP.
>

Thanks. Seems that keeping this value restricted to multiples of 64 is
the way to go. Will fix for the next version of the series.


Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius