Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Of course we agree that such a "polling router/firewall" behaviour must
> > not be the default but it must be enabled on demand by the admin via
> > sysctl or whatever else userspace API. And I don't see any problem with
> > that.
> 
> No I don't agree. "Stop random end users crashing my machine at will" is not
> a magic sysctl option - its a default. 

I think (Ingo's?) analogy of an airbag was appropriate, if that's indeed
how the code winds up functioning.

Having a mechanism that prevents what would otherwise be a lockup is
useful.  NAPI is useful.  Having both would be nice :)

        Jeff