On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:07:01 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 09:55:48AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:41:39 -0800
> > "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/19/2017 7:47 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > I'll need to look at this more, in particular the feature
> > > > bit is missing here. For now one question:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 04:40:36PM -0800, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> > > >> @@ -56,6 +58,8 @@ module_param(napi_tx, bool, 0644);
> > > >> */
> > > >> DECLARE_EWMA(pkt_len, 0, 64)
> > > >>
> > > >> +#define VF_TAKEOVER_INT (HZ / 10)
> > > >> +
> > > >> #define VIRTNET_DRIVER_VERSION "1.0.0"
> > > >>
> > > >> static const unsigned long guest_offloads[] = {
> > > > Why is this delay necessary? And why by 100ms?
> > >
> > > This is based on netvsc implementation and here is the commit that
> > > added this delay. Not sure if this needs to be 100ms.
> > >
> > > commit 6123c66854c174e4982f98195100c1d990f9e5e6
> > > Author: stephen hemminger <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Wed Aug 9 17:46:03 2017 -0700
> > >
> > > netvsc: delay setup of VF device
> > >
> > > When VF device is discovered, delay bring it automatically up in
> > > order to allow userspace to some simple changes (like renaming).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > could be 10ms, just enough to let udev do its renaming
>
> Isn't there a way not to depend on udev completing its thing within a given timeframe?
Not that I know. the path is quite indirect.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
