On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:25:27 -0700
>
> > Sorry, but why should we treat out-of-tree vendor code any
> > differently than out-of-tree other code.
>
> I think what netdump was trying to do, provide a way to
> requeue instead of fully drop the SKB, is quite reasonable.
> Don't you think?
Yes, but the queued vs non-queued stuff showed up out of order.
The queued messages go through the wrong Tx path. ie. they end up
going into to NIT etc, since the deferred send uses a work queue
it wouldn't work for last-gasp messages or netdump since getting
a work queue to run requires going back to scheduler and processes
running... and it should use skb_buff_head instead
of roll your own queueing.
The other alternative would be to make the send logic non-blocking
and fully push retry to the caller.
I'll make a fix to netdump, if I can find it.
--
Stephen Hemminger <[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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
