| To: | Thomas Spatzier <thomas.spatzier@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver. |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 22 Dec 2004 08:48:28 -0500 |
| Cc: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Paul Jakma <paul@xxxxxxxx>, Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <OFD729E7DA.203E1D4A-ONC1256F72.003B7A8E-C1256F72.003C1150@de.ibm.com> |
| Organization: | jamalopolous |
| References: | <OFD729E7DA.203E1D4A-ONC1256F72.003B7A8E-C1256F72.003C1150@de.ibm.com> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 05:56, Thomas Spatzier wrote:
>
> Is that ok, i.e. what all drivers do or should do?
>
> For the problems that applications might have (i.e. sockets being
> blocked etc.) another solution should be found.
> And as Jeff pointed out, this should be a central solution and
> not be implemented in drivers.
>
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.
cheers,
jamal
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Lockup with 2.6.9-ac15 related to netconsole, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] PKT_SCHED: dsmark must take care of shared/cloned skbs, Thomas Graf |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver., Jeff Garzik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver., Paul Jakma |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |