| To: | David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: e100 "Ferguson" release |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:13:33 -0700 |
| Cc: | greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3F2DDC3A.2040707@pacbell.net> |
| References: | <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010222927D@orsmsx402.jf.intel.com> <3F2CA65F.8060105@pobox.com> <3F2CBA71.2070503@candelatech.com> <20030803003239.4257ef24.davem@redhat.com> <3F2DCE56.6030601@pacbell.net> <20030803200851.7d46a605.davem@redhat.com> <3F2DD6BD.7070504@pacbell.net> <20030803204642.684c6075.davem@redhat.com> <3F2DDC3A.2040707@pacbell.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:08:26 -0700 David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No such callback. If no resources, they fail -ENOMEM and the > caller must recover. Which is why hard_start_xmit() needs to > do something. I would suggest something different :-) For example, what do USB block device drivers do when -ENOMEM comes back? Do they just drop the request on the floor? No, rather they resubmit the request later without the scsi/block layer knowing anything about what happened, right? How do the USB block device drivers know when "later" is? This is why I can't believe there is not some kind of "some USB resources have been freed" event of some sort which USB drivers can use to deal with this. :-) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: e100 "Ferguson" release, David Brownell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TOE brain dump, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: e100 "Ferguson" release, David Brownell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: e100 "Ferguson" release, David Brownell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |