Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 06:01:48PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> B> It's a shame to force all NIC drivers to manage the timeout for this.
> B> Most have a timeout for other purposes so I couldn't see how to save
> B> much code using a callback, but a callback would be cleaner. (To avoid
> B> the race, just move the decrement of the count to drivers.)
>
> It is a shame to have a two extra fields in struct ifnet, just for
> the sake of the drivers that can wedge. It is a shame to go through
> the whole list of interfaces every second.
>
> There are routers with few NICs and dozens of vlan(4) interfaces. There
> are also PPP concentrators with up to thousand interfaces and only
> one NIC that really needs to have its watchdog.
>
I agree with both sentiments and as the originator of the ifnet watchdog
mechanism I can only say that it's high time it was replaced by
something better. My main worry with this change is that people will
_blindly_ sweep drivers replacing what was previously a fairly
lightweight mechanism with something much more expensive.
Sam
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
