| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch] e1000 TSO parameter |
| From: | David Mosberger <davidm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:57:05 -0700 |
| Cc: | "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx>, davidm@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030714214510.17e02a9f.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E0102229169@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030714214510.17e02a9f.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | davidm@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:45:10 -0700, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> said:
DaveM> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:42:40 -0700 "Feldman, Scott"
DaveM> <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Note that I had to move the e1000_check_options() call to a >
>> slighly earlier place. You may want to double-check that > it's
>> really OK.
>> I'm not too keen on adding another module parameter. Maybe a
>> CONFIG_E1000_TSO option?
DaveM> Extend ethtool please :-)
ethtool would be ideal, agreed.
I absolutely think that this should be a runtime option, not a
compile-time option.
--david
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch] e1000 TSO parameter, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [patch] e1000 TSO parameter, Feldman, Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch] e1000 TSO parameter, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch] e1000 TSO parameter, David Mosberger |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |