[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Thomas Spatzier <thomas.spatzier@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver.
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 03 Jan 2005 10:05:10 -0500
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Paul Jakma <paul@xxxxxxxx>, Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <OFB7F7E23F.EFB88418-ONC1256F7E.0031769E-C1256F7E.003270AD@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <OFB7F7E23F.EFB88418-ONC1256F7E.0031769E-C1256F7E.003270AD@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
The change is simple if theres consensus to go this path.


On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 04:10, Thomas Spatzier wrote:
> jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 22.12.2004 14:48:28:
> > I think this needs to be resolved too.
> > It is possible to have a centralized action instead of requiring drivers
> > to make changes if we know the state of the driver is in netcarrier_off.
> > What that would require is
> > on cable gone, you just say:
> >       netif_carrier_off();
> > and the top layer code will junk the packets before they hit the driver.
> > This way the socket code can continue sending whatever it wants but if
> > theres no link, then its fair to drop those packets?
> >
> > If this acceptable i can generate a quick patch.
> Does Jamal's solution sound good for all? Then I would change my driver
> to do the following:
> just call netif_carrier_off() (not netif_stop_queue)
> Then the upper layers will do the propper thing, so I should not
> get any more packets. If I still get some, I will drop them.
> Did I get this correctly?
> BTW: A happy new year to all ;-)
> Regards,
> Thomas.

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