Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+net\:\s+Disable\s+queueing\s+when\s+carrier\s+is\s+lost\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+net\:\s+Disable\s+queueing\s+when\s+carrier\s+is\s+lost\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 18:11:40 +1000; Hi Tommy: I agree with you now that your patch is the best way to go. We should document this so that NIC drivers are told about this. Any NICs that can't process their TX rings while the carrier is; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00000.html (10,573 bytes)
2. [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: as.dichtel@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:53:16 +0200; thing t; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00863.html (11,733 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:43:13 +1000; , jamal; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00875.html (10,274 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: . Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:42:24 +1000; followi; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00944.html (11,188 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:27:57 +0200; ense. "; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00946.html (13,006 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:43:59 +1000; olicy->; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00949.html (11,112 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: bert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:51:48 +0200; alf-dup; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01049.html (12,631 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: n@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:18:36 +1000; esan@xx; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01051.html (11,573 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: ert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:22:36 +0200; if appr; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01053.html (13,216 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:45:12 +1000; & late; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01074.html (11,481 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:46:38 +1000; lassifi; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01083.html (10,929 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:57:12 +0200; n IPsec; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01099.html (12,205 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:59:54 +0200; Rememb; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01100.html (11,111 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 18:11:40 +1000; Hi Tommy: I agree with you now that your patch is the best way to go. We should document this so that NIC drivers are told about this. Any NICs that can't process their TX rings while the carrier is; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01289.html (11,234 bytes)
15. [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:53:16 +0200; The executive summary: Certain network drivers call netif_stop_queue() when they detect a loss of carrier. This has some unfortunate effects on the current networking stack, since packets are now bei; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01999.html (11,617 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:43:13 +1000; I remember that thread :) Thanks for chasing this up. Agreed. The idea is good. However, the implementation has a problem in it. You're relying on the watchdog which may not be there. The watchdog is; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg02011.html (10,341 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:42:24 +1000; Not having a TX timeout handler doesn't mean that the driver is doing something weird. If you do a grep in drivers/net you'll find loads of drivers that don't have TX timeout handlers but their handl; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg02080.html (11,362 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:27:57 +0200; My theory was this: Almost all drivers should be able to use the generic watchdog (and I believe most of them do). If the "TX stalled" supervision isn't appropriate for some particular driver, e.g.; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg02082.html (12,953 bytes)
19. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:43:59 +1000; You're still assuming that the hardware will continue to drain packets when the carrier goes off. This may be true for a lot of NICs, but it is certainly not universal. I am not saying that there is; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg02085.html (11,312 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH] net: Disable queueing when carrier is lost (score: 1): Author: Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:51:48 +0200; Originally, I was afraid it could get too trigger happy, so I left this idea. Perhaps that's not such a big deal afterall. How does this look? Signed-off-by: Tommy S. Christensen <tommy.christensen@x; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg02185.html (12,822 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]