On 11 May 2015 at 20:38, Mark Kettenis <[email protected]> wrote: >> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:37:19 -0400 >> From: Brad Smith <[email protected]> >> >> On 05/11/15 10:23, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> > If all em(4) need 4 descriptors, would it make more sense to just enforce >> > lwm >= 4? Both from a self-documentation point of view, and to avoid a >> > potential trap if some nic was discovered to support <2k baby jumbos >> > i.e. give the same result for the if_hardmtu/MCLBYTES sum. >> >> That is the whole point of the diff. >> >> That doesn't involve chaining so it doesn't make any sense. > > Well, I agree with sthen@. It is far from obvious that this code > guarantees that we have at least 4 descriptors available for the > receive ring. > > I'd go with something like the diff below instead. >
OK mikeb
