On 8/27/09, Joachim Fenkes <fen...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenst...@gmail.com> wrote on 26.08.2009 17:15:03: > > > Thanks for doing this. It looks sane to me. The only issue I recall that > > > appears to be remaining is a better setting of > ClassPortInfo:RespTimeValue > > rather than hardcoding. Perhaps using the value from PortInfo is the way > to go > > (ideally it would be that value from the port to which the the requester > is > > being redirected to but that might not be so easy to get from this port. > > I don't think that effort will be necessary or even legal. The requestor > will react to the redirection with another Get(ClassPortInfo) to the > redirection target, which will reply with its own RespTimeValue, so our > driver should speak for itself.
I overreached with my comment on how this works. Since we don't know when our MAD > processing and sending of the response is going to be scheduled (we're not > running on real-time constraints here), we play it safe and return 18, > which amounts to roughly a second. > > Make sense? I don't think it should be hard coded. IMO it would be better to default to 18 and somehow able to be adjusted (via a (dynamic) module parameter ?). -- Hal > Regards > Joachim >
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
