| To: | Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | dev->hard_start_xmit return val handling correct? |
| From: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:04:50 -0400 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Organization: | MandrakeSoft |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
When dev->hard_start_xmit returns an error, it doesn't seem like
returning ENETDOWN is the best course of action.. Is this correct?
int dev_queue_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb)
[...]
if (dev->hard_start_xmit(skb, dev) == 0) {
dev->xmit_lock_owner = -1;
spin_unlock_bh(&dev->xmit_lock);
return 0;
}
}
dev->xmit_lock_owner = -1;
spin_unlock_bh(&dev->xmit_lock);
if (net_ratelimit())
printk(KERN_DEBUG "Virtual device %s asks to queue
packet!\n", dev->name);
kfree_skb(skb);
return -ENETDOWN;
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: PATCH 2.4.0.9.2: export ethtool interface, Richard Gooch |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: PATCH 2.4.0.9.2: export ethtool interface, Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | IP checksum calculation, Ramón Agüero |
| Next by Thread: | Re: dev->hard_start_xmit return val handling correct?, kuznet |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |