From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier Galibert Subject: Re: Network drivers that don't suspend on interface down Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:27:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20061220152701.GA22928@dspnet.fr.eu.org> References: <20061219185223.GA13256@srcf.ucam.org> <200612191959.43019.david-b@pacbell.net> <20061220042648.GA19814@srcf.ucam.org> <200612192114.49920.david-b@pacbell.net> <20061220053417.GA29877@suse.de> <20061220055209.GA20483@srcf.ucam.org> <1166601025.3365.1345.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20061220125314.GA24188@srcf.ucam.org> <1166621931.3365.1384.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matthew Garrett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Arjan van de Ven Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1166621931.3365.1384.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:38:51PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > [1] What kind of latency would be allowed? Would an implementation be > allowed to power up the phy say once per minute or once per 5 minutes to > see if there is link? The implementation could do this progressively; > first poll every X seconds, then after an hour, every minute etc. I suspect that the hard maximum latency is the time needed by the user to start the network himself, be it opening a root xterm and doing the appropriate invocation or pulling up and clicking where appropriate in a GUI. That's probably around 5 seconds. Over that, and they won't even notice there is an autodetection running. But still, 5 seconds is probably too much too, because it's going to look like it's unreliable. The user has to see something happen within half-a-second or so, otherwise he's going to start doing it by hand. The "see" part is distribution/desktop-dependant and not the kernel problem, but the top chrono happens when the rj45 is plugged in. OG.