netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver.
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 19 Dec 2004 18:05:17 -0500
Cc: Thomas Spatzier <thomas.spatzier@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Paul Jakma <paul@xxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <41C600D7.70005@tpack.net>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <OF28701C56.81E1D26E-ONC1256F6B.00513EDD-C1256F6B.0052AF84@de.ibm.com> <1103484552.1046.155.camel@jzny.localdomain> <41C600D7.70005@tpack.net>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 17:29, Tommy Christensen wrote:

> I haven't tried this myself, but surely it can happen when the
> socket send-buffer is smaller than what can be queued up for
> transmission: i.e. in the qdisc queue and device DMA ring.

Shouldnt this have to do with socket options? If you wish to block while
waiting for send, then you should be allowed.
For a routing protocol that actually is notified that the link went
down, it should probably flush those socket buffer at that point.

> And even more so, when sending to multiple devices from one socket.

Yes, this looks more within reason. I dont know what the answer to this
is. But would be helpful for someone to create a setup that reproduces
this.

> > Look at e1000 they do it right there. 
> > 
> > On link up:
> >     netif_carrier_on(netdev);
> >     netif_wake_queue(netdev);
> > On Link Down:
> >     netif_carrier_off(netdev); // wonder if these need swapping
> >     netif_stop_queue(netdev);
> > 
> 
> Well, this is the same as what started this whole thread.
> I believe that stopping the queue on link-down events is simply
> bad behavior of the driver.

>From what Thomas was saying, this is not what he was doing. Read his
email.

cheers,
jamal



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