Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool

2017-11-20 Thread Eran Ben Elisha
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> I don't like adding another ethtool_ops callback tightly tied to the >> structures passed via ioctl() but when I started to think what to >> suggest as an alternative, I started to wonder if it is really necessary >> to add a

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool

2017-11-16 Thread Andrew Lunn
> I don't like adding another ethtool_ops callback tightly tied to the > structures passed via ioctl() but when I started to think what to > suggest as an alternative, I started to wonder if it is really necessary > to add a new ethtool command at all. Couldn't this be handled as > a tunable? I

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool

2017-11-16 Thread Andrew Lunn
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:17:36AM +0200, Eran Ben Elisha wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > >> What do other vendors support? Time? Number of pause frames sent? > > > > So i checked a few Marvell Switches. You can also specify a time. It > > is a

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool

2017-11-16 Thread Michal Kubecek
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 02:03:21PM +0200, Eran Ben Elisha wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > > I don't like adding another ethtool_ops callback tightly tied to the > > structures passed via ioctl() but when I started to think what to > >

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool

2017-11-16 Thread Eran Ben Elisha
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 09:00:09PM +0200, Eran Ben Elisha wrote: >> From: Inbar Karmy >> >> This RFC adds support for configuring PFC stall prevention through ethtool. >> >> In the event where the

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool

2017-11-16 Thread Eran Ben Elisha
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> What do other vendors support? Time? Number of pause frames sent? > > So i checked a few Marvell Switches. You can also specify a time. It > is a little bit more complex than that, since the units of time depend > on the link

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool

2017-11-16 Thread Michal Kubecek
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 09:00:09PM +0200, Eran Ben Elisha wrote: > From: Inbar Karmy > > This RFC adds support for configuring PFC stall prevention through ethtool. > > In the event where the device unexpectedly becomes unresponsive for a long > period of time, flow control

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool

2017-11-15 Thread Andrew Lunn
> What do other vendors support? Time? Number of pause frames sent? So i checked a few Marvell Switches. You can also specify a time. It is a little bit more complex than that, since the units of time depend on the link speed. But converting a time in ms to what the register wants is possible.

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool

2017-11-15 Thread Andrew Lunn
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 09:00:09PM +0200, Eran Ben Elisha wrote: > From: Inbar Karmy > > This RFC adds support for configuring PFC stall prevention through ethtool. > > In the event where the device unexpectedly becomes unresponsive for a long > period of time, flow control