netdev
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP

from [Paul Mackerras] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: James Carlson <carlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:12:13 +1000 (EST)
Cc: Jamal Hadi <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, fcusack@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <16124.11495.374998.153330@h006008986325.ne.client2.attbi.com>
References: <20030625.143334.85380461.davem@redhat.com> <20030626035824.D68B62C147@lists.samba.org> <20030625.205941.41631020.davem@redhat.com> <16122.53298.150512.793074@h006008986325.ne.client2.attbi.com> <20030626190407.S87648@shell.cyberus.ca> <16124.11495.374998.153330@h006008986325.ne.client2.attbi.com>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx 
James Carlson writes:
> Jamal Hadi writes:
> > So what about packet being loss? Wouldnt that ensure reordering?
> 
> Please explain.  What pattern of loss possibly results in one packet
> being inserted in the stream ahead of another?

Rusty asked me today what protocols there were that coped with packet
loss but couldn't cope with reordering.  I couldn't think of any.  Do
you know of any examples?

Regards,
Paul.
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP, James Carlson
Next by Date:  e1000 lockup with port io type reset, Zwane Mwaikambo
Previous by Thread:  Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP, James Carlson
Next by Thread:  Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP, James Carlson
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]