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 netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
