On Mon, 18 May 2020 15:06:26 -0700 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: > Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> writes: > > > > Please take a look at the example from the cover letter: > > > > $ ethtool $ sudo ./ethtool --show-frame-preemption > > enp3s0 Frame preemption settings for enp3s0: > > support: supported > > active: active > > supported queues: 0xf > > supported queues: 0xe > > minimum fragment size: 68 > > > > Reading this I have no idea what 0xe is. I have to go and query TC API > > to see what priorities and queues that will be. Which IMHO is a strong > > argument that this information belongs there in the first place. > > That was the (only?) strong argument in favor of having frame preemption > in the TC side when this was last discussed. > > We can have a hybrid solution, we can move the express/preemptible per > queue map to mqprio/taprio/whatever. And have the more specific > configuration knobs, minimum fragment size, etc, in ethtool. > > What do you think?
Does the standard specify minimum fragment size as a global MAC setting?
