[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver.

To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver.
From: Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:31:43 +0100
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Spatzier <thomas.spatzier@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Paul Jakma <paul@xxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1107130177.7847.96.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <> <1104764710.1048.580.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1104895169.1117.63.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1105019912.2314.20.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1105104757.1046.63.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1105363092.1041.146.camel@jzny.localdomain> <1105917038.1091.1041.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <> <1107130177.7847.96.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
jamal wrote:

I wasnt sure why you did:

dev->qdisc = &noop_qdisc;

You should probably save the old qdisc in qdisc_sleeping instead
and restore it on wakeup - otherwise you always end with default qdisc.

I think normally we will have qdisc == qdisc_sleeping. At least this is how I read the code in dev_graft_qdisc(). When can they differ?

check_carrier should probably just call dev_activate which does all you
wanted, no?

I copied the logic from dev_deactivate(), but I didn't want to include the waiting parts, since this is not in process context. OK?


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