netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: e100 "Ferguson" release

To: David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: e100 "Ferguson" release
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:13:33 -0700
Cc: greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3F2DDC3A.2040707@pacbell.net>
References: <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010222927D@orsmsx402.jf.intel.com> <3F2CA65F.8060105@pobox.com> <3F2CBA71.2070503@candelatech.com> <20030803003239.4257ef24.davem@redhat.com> <3F2DCE56.6030601@pacbell.net> <20030803200851.7d46a605.davem@redhat.com> <3F2DD6BD.7070504@pacbell.net> <20030803204642.684c6075.davem@redhat.com> <3F2DDC3A.2040707@pacbell.net>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:08:26 -0700
David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> No such callback.  If no resources, they fail -ENOMEM and the
> caller must recover.  Which is why hard_start_xmit() needs to
> do something.

I would suggest something different :-)

For example, what do USB block device drivers do when -ENOMEM comes
back?  Do they just drop the request on the floor?  No, rather they
resubmit the request later without the scsi/block layer knowing
anything about what happened, right?

How do the USB block device drivers know when "later" is?  This is why
I can't believe there is not some kind of "some USB resources have
been freed" event of some sort which USB drivers can use to deal with
this.  :-)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>