Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261745AbUK2QCm (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:02:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261750AbUK2QCl (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:02:41 -0500 Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]:30134 "EHLO mtagate2.de.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261745AbUK2P6Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:58:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver. To: paul@clubi.ie Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 Message-ID: From: Thomas Spatzier Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:57:25 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D12ML061/12/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2HF259 | March 11, 2004) at 29/11/2004 16:57:48 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 975 Lines: 29 > Using a socket per interface wont address problem of sending > quite stale packets when a link > comes back after a long time > down, AUI. (not a huge problem - but not nice). > > Jeff??? Has there been any outcome on the discussion about whether or not a device driver should drop packets when the cable is disconnected? It seems that from the zebra point of view, as Paul wrote, it would be better to not block sockets by queueing up packets when there is no cable connection. I do also think that it does not make sense to keep packets in the queue and then send those packets when the cable is plugged in again after a possibly long time. There are protocols like TCP that handle packet loss anyway. Regards, Thomas. - 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/