Guys,
I made a draft of implementation of our new UI to set flowcontrols.
Please find it in attachment. Looking forward to your suggestions.
Thanks,
Raymond
Raymond LI - Sun Microsystems - Beijing China wrote:
> Rainer Heilke wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I haven't really been part of this discussion. Here are my
>> votes/opinions.
>>
>> Raymond LI - Sun Microsystems - Beijing China wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Guys, would we come up with some conclusion on this?
>>>
>>> 1. What UI to provide, meaningful strings or numerical on/off?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I vote for meaningful strings.
>>
>>
>>> I think all of us agree to have a more straightfoward UI for customer
>>> to config.
>>> And we have below two proposed UI so far.
>>> (1) flowcontrol = {send, accept, disable, both}
>>> (2) accept_pause = {0, 1}, send_pause = {0, 1}
>>> Seems (1) is more concise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Flow control seems clearer.
>>
> OK, let's do that with flowcontrol and string values.
>
>>> 2. Will we still keep our ieee802.3(5) manpage definations as
>>> underlying implementation?
>>> I think before IEEE has new idea on them, we just keep them as what
>>> they are today.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Not sure on this one.
>>
>>
>>> But we don't provide interfaces to directly tune them anymore. User
>>> still could check the
>>> values as read-only for debug/diag purpose.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> If we can't tune them, we should at least have a way of determining them.
>>
> Yes, I think this will determine when flowcontrol is set to some value.
> And this will avoid that
> different drivers have different parsing.
> _______________________________________________
> driver-discuss mailing list
> driver-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: pause.txt
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/brussels-dev/attachments/20070817/720b852b/attachment.txt>
