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

[Vinicius Costa Gomes]

Jakub Kicinski <kuba at kernel.org> writes:

>> That was the (only?) strong argument in favor of having frame preemption
>> in the TC side when this was last discussed.
>> 
>> We can have a hybrid solution, we can move the express/preemptible per
>> queue map to mqprio/taprio/whatever. And have the more specific
>> configuration knobs, minimum fragment size, etc, in ethtool.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>
> Does the standard specify minimum fragment size as a global MAC setting?

Yes, it's a per-MAC setting, not per-queue. 


-- 
Vinicius