Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5

From: Jeff Garzik (
Date: Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:03:57 EST

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 :)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:17 EST