Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

2020-05-20 Thread Vinicius Costa Gomes
Andre Guedes writes: >> If standard defines it as per-MAC and we can reasonably expect vendors >> won't try to "add value" and make it per queue (unlikely here AFAIU), >> then for this part ethtool configuration seems okay to me. > > Before we move forward with this hybrid approach, let's recap a

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

2020-05-20 Thread Andre Guedes
Hi, Quoting Jakub Kicinski (2020-05-18 16:09:06) > On Mon, 18 May 2020 16:05:08 -0700 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: > > Jakub Kicinski writes: > > >> That was the (only?) strong argument in favor of having frame preemption > > >> in the TC side when this was last discussed. > > >> > > >> We can ha