From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC]: napi_struct V5 Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20070808.212353.105403708.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1186587154.5155.43.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xma@us.ibm.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, shemminger@linux-foundation.org To: hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:52185 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751585AbXHIEXy (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 00:23:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1186587154.5155.43.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: jamal Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:32:34 -0400 > Think of a box where you have other network interfaces, the way you > are implementing currently implies you are going to be very unfair to > the other interfaces on the box. This was the point I was trying to make the other day. What's good for the goose (ipoib) is not necessarily good for the gander and NAPI exists for the gander as much as for the goose.