Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:14:09 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] netpoll: rework skb transmit queue
Message-ID: <20061020131409.0a336a56@freekitty>
In-Reply-To: <20061020.125226.59656580.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20061020081857.743b5eb7@localhost.localdomain>
	<20061020.122427.55507415.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20061020122527.56292b56@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net>
	<20061020.125226.59656580.davem@davemloft.net>
Organization: OSDL
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1271
Lines: 33

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
> 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 <shemminger@osdl.org>
-
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/