| To: | "John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: netpoll and the bonding driver |
| From: | Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:01:14 -0400 |
| Cc: | Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050620002118.GA16859@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <17075.10995.498758.773092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050619181436.GX27572@xxxxxxxxx> <20050620002118.GA16859@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
==> Regarding Re: netpoll and the bonding driver; "John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> adds: linville> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 11:14:36AM -0700, Matt Mackall wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:56:35PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> > I'm trying to implement a netpoll hook for the bonding driver. >> >> My first question would be: does this really make sense to do? Why not >> just bind netpoll to one of the underlying devices? linville> Depending on the bonding mode, this would be very unlikely to linville> work. The other side of the link will still be expecting to talk linville> to the bond rather than to an individual link. Right, and for those drivers which register a netpoll_rx routine, they may not get all of the packets destined for them. -Jeff |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [patch] ipw2100: remove commented-out code, Pavel Machek |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [net-2.6.13 0/3] [IPSEC] Allow PMTU discovery to be turned off, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: netpoll and the bonding driver, John W. Linville |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH net-drivers-2.6 0/9] ixgb: driver update, Malli Chilakala |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |