| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH]: was Re: LLTX and netif_stop_queue |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:16:45 +0100 |
| Cc: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, roland@xxxxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, iod00d@xxxxxx, eric.lemoine@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxx, openib-general@xxxxxxxxxx, kaber@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050126223247.3e4643cc.davem@davemloft.net> |
| References: | <20050119144711.3fdd3d93.davem@davemloft.net> <20050119151853.259de49a@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <20050119164640.6c67bdfa.davem@davemloft.net> <52r7kgu5n5.fsf@topspin.com> <20050119230526.393a5184.davem@davemloft.net> <20050120085611.33f9485e@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <20050121105452.GA12988@xi.wantstofly.org> <20050125222705.1ee878fd.davem@davemloft.net> <20050126132512.GA18220@xi.wantstofly.org> <20050126223247.3e4643cc.davem@davemloft.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:32:47PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:25:12 +0100 > Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I've thought about this a bit, and the only sane way of doing recursion > > detection that doesn't involve 'struct net_device' would be to keep track > > of the recursion depth (perhaps per-CPU as you suggest) and tossing the > > packet when it exceeds some random value, right? > > Yes, that's the idea. per CPU only works in preemptive kernel if you have preemption disabled all the time. Do you? Seems not likely to me. -Andi |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH][IPsec] fix process of error from crypto module, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH/RFC] Reduce call chain length in netfilter, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH]: was Re: LLTX and netif_stop_queue, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH]: was Re: LLTX and netif_stop_queue, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |