From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinicius Costa Gomes Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:12:58 -0800 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 2/8] taprio: Add support for frame preemption offload In-Reply-To: <20210129135702.0f8cf702@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> References: <20210122224453.4161729-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20210122224453.4161729-3-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20210126000924.jjkjruzmh5lgrkry@skbuf> <87wnvvsayz.fsf@vcostago-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com> <20210129135702.0f8cf702@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Message-ID: <878s8bs5fp.fsf@vcostago-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: Jakub Kicinski writes: >> > First I'm interested in the means: why check for preempt == U32_MAX when >> > you determine that all traffic classes are preemptible? What if less >> > than 32 traffic classes are used by the netdev? The check will be >> > bypassed, won't it? >> >> Good catch :-) >> >> I wanted to have this (at least one express queue) handled in a >> centralized way, but perhaps this should be handled best per driver. > > Centralized is good. Much easier than reviewing N drivers to make sure > they all behave the same, and right. The issue is that it seems that not all drivers/hw have the same limitation: that at least one queue needs to be configured as express/not preemptible. That's the point I was trying to make when I suggested for the check to be done per-driver, different limitations. Cheers, -- Vinicius