Re: [PATCH net V4 2/2] igb: offer a PTP Hardware Clock instead of the timecompare method
From: chetan loke <hidden>
Date: 2012-03-27 18:39:29
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Richard Cochran [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 01:11:32PM -0400, chetan loke wrote:quoted
Why isn't ioctl-rate limiting acceptable?Let me turn the question around. What other kernel subsystem rate limits ioctls?
netdev needs to worry about reaching the host via ethernet. If you lose SCSI LUNs because you are pounding those mailbox cmds to get that temperature status from the HBA then who the heck cares? I mean we do but we can reach the host via it's mgmt-IP and look at it. From what I can see in SCSI for example, control commands are normally issued in separate paths by the driver and don't choke the fast path. Those completions are asynchronous like everything else and do NOT contend with the Rx/Tx path. May be I'm paranoid but let's wait for Intel(Jake) to run the ioctl test. Chetan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired