Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:12:23 -0800 From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Marius Strobl <marius@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci if_xl.c if_xlreg.h Message-ID: <4576F9F7.9090503@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <20061206154555.GM32700@FreeBSD.org> References: <200612060218.kB62IfVn046324@repoman.freebsd.org> <20061206164242.A32496@delplex.bde.org> <20061206154555.GM32700@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4576F9F7.9090503>