Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:04:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:04:13 -0400 Received: from mandrakesoft.mandrakesoft.com ([216.71.84.35]:26218 "EHLO mandrakesoft.mandrakesoft.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:03:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:03:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeff Garzik To: Alan Cox cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Ingo Molnar , jamal , Linux-Kernel , netdev@oss.sgi.com, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > Of course we agree that such a "polling router/firewall" behaviour must > > not be the default but it must be enabled on demand by the admin via > > sysctl or whatever else userspace API. And I don't see any problem with > > that. > > No I don't agree. "Stop random end users crashing my machine at will" is not > a magic sysctl option - its a default. I think (Ingo's?) analogy of an airbag was appropriate, if that's indeed how the code winds up functioning. Having a mechanism that prevents what would otherwise be a lockup is useful. NAPI is useful. Having both would be nice :) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/