[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver.

To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver.
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04 Jan 2005 22:19:29 -0500
Cc: Thomas Spatzier <thomas.spatzier@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Paul Jakma <paul@xxxxxxxx>, Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <41DB26A6.2070008@xxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <OFB7F7E23F.EFB88418-ONC1256F7E.0031769E-C1256F7E.003270AD@xxxxxxxxxx> <1104764710.1048.580.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41DB26A6.2070008@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 18:28, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> > The change is simple if theres consensus to go this path.
> Can you resend your patch?

I didnt send any patch - but heres one that looks right - havent tried
compiling it.

> My main objection was that any change should be made in the core, not in 
> individual net drivers.

Attached patch resolves that concern

> Another objection was that it seemed that some of the proposed solutions 
> for clearing the queue on link down were imposing app-specific policy on 
> the overall kernel.
> Aren't there cases where people would -not- want the queue to be cleared?

Thats a good question and your point of imposing policy in the kernel is
valid. I know that i would probably want packets to appear they are
going out when the wire is pulled from underneath me.
Theres possibly people who would want it differently - so for we havent
heard from them. Maybe poll far and wide - or push it in and wait for
them to whine.


Attachment: nc.p
Description: Text document

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>