Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:23:52 -0300 From: Christopher Forgeron <csforgeron@gmail.com> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>, Markus Gebert <markus.gebert@hostpoint.ch> Subject: Re: 9.2 ixgbe tx queue hang Message-ID: <CAB2_NwB7PnJfyzfgf4n7tqkKqxqgno%2B%2Bf9xY8_aV6AJ-mgPMYw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1380107288.1240335.1395880548644.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <CAB2_NwBZjVYVoPMh4HgNtGoULBuy0gA2=K7K=Bn=zCkjAu=Paw@mail.gmail.com> <1380107288.1240335.1395880548644.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > > > I've suggested in the other thread what you suggested in a recent > post...ie. to change the default, at least until the propagation > of driver set values is resolved. > > rick > I wonder if we need to worry about propagating values up from the sub-if's - Setting the default in if.c means this is set for all if's, and it's a simple 1 line code change. If a specific 'if' needs a different value, it can be set before ether_attach() is called. I'm more concerned with the equation we use to calculate if_hw_tsomax - Are we considering the right variables? Are we thinking on the wrong OSI layer for headers?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAB2_NwB7PnJfyzfgf4n7tqkKqxqgno%2B%2Bf9xY8_aV6AJ-mgPMYw>