From: David Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 5:05 AM > > From: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:13:39 +0800 [...] > Basically, your driver will now queue up to 1,000 packets onto > this tx_queue list, because that is what tx_queue_len will be > for alloc_etherdev() allocated network devices. > > In my previous reply to you about this patch, I asked you to > quantify and study the effects of using a limit of 60. I said > that 60 might be too large. > > You've responded by removing the limit completely, which is exactly > the opposite of what I've asked you to do. Why did you do this? Excuse me. My question is that the original code doesn't stop the tx queue either, so I don't understand why it is necessary for this patch. I don't say I wouldn't find the suitable value for the tx queue length. I feel I need some time to think how to find the reasonable value. And I don't hope it influences the submission of the other patches, so I remove it first. Or, may I submit the other two patches first? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
