| To: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 4 Oct 2001 07:49:46 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110040749120.1727-100000@localhost.localdomain> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, jamal wrote: > > > I think you can save yourself a lot of pain today by going to a > > "better driver"/hardware. Switch to a tulip based board; [...] > > This is not an option in many cases. (eg. where a company standardizes on > something non-tulip, or due to simple financial/organizational reasons.) > What you say is the approach i see in the FreeBSD camp frequently: "use > these [limited set of] wonderful cards and drivers, the rest sucks > hardware-design-wise and we dont really care about them", which elitist > attitude i strongly disagree with. > It is not elitist. Maybe we can force people to use the API now. it exists. And hardware flow control does not require special hardware features. As well NAPI kills the requirement for mitigation in the future. cheers, jamal |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5, Ingo Molnar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5, Alan Cox |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |