From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: TX watchdog vs link-layer flow control Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:01:42 +0100 Message-ID: <1307048502.2812.67.camel@bwh-desktop> References: <1307047720.2812.59.camel@bwh-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-net-drivers To: netdev Return-path: Received: from mail.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:36810 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754615Ab1FBVBp (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:01:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1307047720.2812.59.camel@bwh-desktop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Also: given that the watchdog fires if *any* TX queue is stopped, that seems to mean that on a device with hardware TX priority it could be triggered for a TX queue with low priority if the link is filled with higher-priority TX packets for long enough. (This depends on how 'hard' the priorities are, of course.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.