| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent netpoll hanging when link is down |
| From: | Colin Leroy <colin@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:06:10 +0200 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041007214505.GB31558@wotan.suse.de> |
| References: | <20041006232544.53615761@jack.colino.net> <20041006214322.GG31237@waste.org> <20041007075319.6b31430d@jack.colino.net> <20041006234912.66bfbdcc.davem@davemloft.net> <20041007160532.60c3f26b@pirandello> <20041007112846.5c85b2d9.davem@davemloft.net> <20041007224422.1c1bea95@jack.colino.net> <20041007214505.GB31558@wotan.suse.de> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On 07 Oct 2004 at 23h10, Andi Kleen wrote: Hi, > > This patch should do that. It works OK for me, but I'd like it > > checked before sent upstream... > > > > However, it doesn't fix the hang. it looks like this hang is really > > coming from sungem. > > IMHO it's not needed. Taking xmit_lock is harmless even when > the NETIF_F_LLTX flag is set. Should that be completely dropped, or is it still ok ? (I think differenciating action based on hard_start_xmit status, that is, don't goto repeat undefinitely when NETDEV_TX_BUSY, could be a good idea). I mean, should I rework that patch, forget about it or leave it as-is? Concerning the hang, I see that Andrew has put my first patch, the one checking for netif_carrier_ok(), in his tree. Is it an OK solution from your (net dev hackers) point of view? Thanks, -- Colin |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent netpoll hanging when link is down, Colin Leroy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | tcp heisenbug, Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent netpoll hanging when link is down, Matt Mackall |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent netpoll hanging when link is down, Matt Mackall |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |