On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 11:00:29AM +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 09:57, Matthew Palmer <mpal...@debian.org> wrote: > > [Taking this off-bug] > > > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:52:53AM -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote: > >> btw, (unrelated to #537271), it seems to me that 3 seconds is a fairly > >> short value for NETCFG_LINK_WAIT_TIME. i'm pretty sure i've seen > >> link-up take longer than that on occasion before, depending on NIC > >> chipset, switch, autonegotiation latency, etc. > > > > I've been led to believe by people who should know (a Linux netdev > > maintainer) that autonegotiation *should* take on the order of 500ms. > > > >> 5 - 10 seconds would be > >> a more conservative default, given that there's no penalty if link-up > >> occurs before the timeout. > > > > Sure, there's no penalty is link-up occurs, but what about all the people > > for whom link-up doesn't occur -- say, because they're on a wireless link, > > or their chipset doesn't work right, or it's trying on a link that isn't > > actually up? Every delay screws them over more and more. > > It seems we have a trade-off here. > > I think the decision depends on the number of affected users: > > - how many will have link-up in less of this time?
Most-to-all. > - how many chipset has issues with it and will end up getting it in 5 > or 10 secs? Some-to-none. > - could it be !wireless specific? Yes, but that only chops out one subset of cases (link-not-connected will still take the extra time); I'm also considering switching to use netif_carrier_ok(), which does work on wireless devices. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110209154314.gk3...@hezmatt.org
