Didn't get a response to a personal e-mail, so forwarding it on to the
LKML for insight.
Thanks!
- Bhavesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Davda, Bhavesh P (Bhavesh)
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:15 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: Disable queueing when carrier is lost.
Folks,
Having run into the same issue that you ran into, with the 2.6.11
kernel, I was tempted to do something very similar to this patch that
made it into 2.6.12-rc4.
Before actually "reinventing the wheel" I figured I would google around
for how others are dealing with it, and found out about this just a few
minutes ago.
I was wondering, do you know of any down sides to doing this, and what
can be the up side of queueing on ethernet devices any time the link
(carrier) is lost? I would have thought the "correct" and "safe"
behaviour would be to drop the packets on the floor when the link goes
down, and let upper layers deal with it.
Thanks
- Bhavesh
Bhavesh P. Davda | Distinguished Member of Technical Staff | Avaya |
1300 West 120th Avenue | B3-B03 | Westminster, CO 80234 | U.S.A. |
Voice/Fax: 303.538.4438 | [email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |