| To: | Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver. |
| From: | Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:04:48 +0100 |
| Cc: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Spatzier <thomas.spatzier@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Paul Jakma <paul@xxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <200501171404.19451.hasso@estpak.ee> |
| References: | <OFB7F7E23F.EFB88418-ONC1256F7E.0031769E-C1256F7E.003270AD@de.ibm.com> <1105363092.1041.146.camel@jzny.localdomain> <1105917038.1091.1041.camel@jzny.localdomain> <200501171404.19451.hasso@estpak.ee> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 |
Hasso Tepper wrote:
All this work is done to avoid sending stale packets to the network? Ie. there will be no change regarding socket blocking issue? Detecting carrier on/off and/or socket per interface is must be for us in user space to avoid socket blocking? I'm just trying to have full picture so I can put my priorities in place for next release.
Using a socket for each interface *ought* not be needed. Carrier detection sounds like a good thing in its own right. Hope this helps, Tommy |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] ipv6: alternative version of S/390 shared NIC support, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver., Peter Buckingham |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver., Hasso Tepper |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver., Peter Buckingham |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |