On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Ben Greear wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> > Patch looks fine except for the 300 number. What are you smoking?
> > Please retain the original value.
>
> The original value was 300, what do you want it to be?
>
Ok, i take back what i said then. Your patch is not that useful.
For some reason i thought you were introducing NET_CORE_DEV_WEIGHT
which happens to already exist with default value of 64.
The value you put out MUST be the same as netdev_max_backlog in order
to be fair to non-NAPI devices.
Any change to one must be reflected to the other. So a useful patch
will try to shadow NET_CORE_MAX_BACKLOG to that value and allow only
changes to happen to NET_CORE_MAX_BACKLOG; i.e no need for two separate
parameters.
cheers,
jamal
|