netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/8] taprio: Add support for frame preemption offload

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20210129162742.6092753b@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:27:42 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com" <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
        Po Liu <po.liu@....com>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        "mkubecek@...e.cz" <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/8] taprio: Add support for frame
 preemption offload

On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:12:58 -0800 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
> >> Good catch :-)
> >> 
> >> I wanted to have this (at least one express queue) handled in a
> >> centralized way, but perhaps this should be handled best per driver.  
> >
> > Centralized is good. Much easier than reviewing N drivers to make sure
> > they all behave the same, and right.  
> 
> The issue is that it seems that not all drivers/hw have the same
> limitation: that at least one queue needs to be configured as
> express/not preemptible.

Oh, I thought that was something driven by the standard.
For HW specific checks driver doing it is obviously fine.

> That's the point I was trying to make when I suggested for the check to
> be done per-driver, different limitations.