| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: e100 "Ferguson" release |
| From: | David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 04 Aug 2003 10:38:17 -0700 |
| Cc: | greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030803211333.12839f66.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010222927D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3F2CA65F.8060105@xxxxxxxxx> <3F2CBA71.2070503@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030803003239.4257ef24.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3F2DCE56.6030601@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20030803200851.7d46a605.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3F2DD6BD.7070504@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20030803204642.684c6075.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3F2DDC3A.2040707@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20030803211333.12839f66.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 |
David S. Miller wrote: 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? I didn't notice any code to retry, but I did see some that morphed ENOMEM into a generic scsi "error". Scsi presumably does something more or less intelligent then. The network layer on the other hand _does_ have hooks for retrying, not that they're used much. - Dave |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: e100 "Ferguson" release, Feldman, Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: e100 "Ferguson" release, Feldman, Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: e100 "Ferguson" release, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: e100 "Ferguson" release, Felix Radensky |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |