| To: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jeff Garzik) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: dev->hard_start_xmit return val handling correct? |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:47:38 +0400 (MSK DST) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <39C97AD2.14D57EA3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Jeff Garzik" at Sep 21, 0 07:15:00 am |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > When dev->hard_start_xmit returns an error, it doesn't seem like > returning ENETDOWN is the best course of action.. Is this correct? hard_start_xmit never returns errors, unfortunately. Any non-zero return value means "try again". It would be not bad idea to check drivers that they always return 1, when want deferring and to use negative values for errors then. Yes. Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: PATCH 2.4.0.9.2: export ethtool interface, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: PATCH 2.4.0.9.2: export ethtool interface, Richard Gooch |
| Previous by Thread: | dev->hard_start_xmit return val handling correct?, Jeff Garzik |
| Next by Thread: | Glibc, Riccardo De Luca |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |