Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:30:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:30:28 -0500 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:49357 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:30:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:24:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20030220.202438.10564686.davem@redhat.com> To: ak@suse.de Cc: sim@netnation.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Longstanding networking / SMP issue? (duplextest) From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20030220093422.GA16369@wotan.suse.de> References: <20030220092043.GA25527@netnation.com> <20030220093422.GA16369@wotan.suse.de> X-FalunGong: Information control. X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 896 Lines: 22 From: Andi Kleen Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:34:22 +0100 On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:20:43AM -0800, Simon Kirby wrote: > Hmm...and this is considered desired behavior? It seems like an odd way > of handling packets intended to test latency and reliability. :) IP is best-effort. Dropping packets in odd cases to make locking simpler is not unreasonable. Would you prefer an slower kernel? True. But this is a quality of implementation issue and I doubt the kernel would be slower if we fixed this silly behavior. Frankly, the locking is due to lazyness, rather than a specific design decision. So let's fix it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/