From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: questions on NAPI processing latency and dropped network packets Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:29:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20080115202905.GA2680@ami.dom.local> References: <20080115071950.GA1696@ff.dom.local> <478CC76B.1020804@nortel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Friesen Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156]:64115 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751700AbYAOU0O (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:26:14 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so2791528fga.17 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:26:11 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <478CC76B.1020804@nortel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:47:07AM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > Jarek Poplawski wrote: > >> IMHO, checking this with a current stable, which probably you are going >> to do some day, anyway, should be 100% acceptable: giving some input to >> netdev, while still working for yourself. > > While I would love to do this, it's not that simple. ...Hmm... As a matter of fact, I expected you'd treat my point less literally... Of course, I know it could be sometimes very hard to get something working even after upgrading one version, let alone several at once. So, it was more a rhetorical trick (sorry!) to suggest, that such a business model of being always late with kernels might be quite practical and reasonable for many companies, but looks like the worst possible development model for Linux. On the other hand, it seems there are not so much, nor expensive changes needed (a bit more perspective thinking?) to make everybody happy... Jarek P.