From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:51:21 +0200 Message-ID: <20150817085121.419a1d28@redhat.com> References: <1439485268-20953-1-git-send-email-phil@nwl.cc> <20150813104950.1b8346f2@urahara> <20150813204037.3c4e68a4@redhat.com> <20150813121157.5166efb1@urahara> <20150814084153.GI32353@orbit.nwl.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: brouer@redhat.com, Stephen Hemminger , netdev@vger.kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, fw@strlen.de, cwang@twopensource.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com To: Phil Sutter Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57943 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750774AbbHQGvZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 02:51:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150814084153.GI32353@orbit.nwl.cc> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:41:53 +0200 Phil Sutter wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: [...] > > > > But adding a flag risks breaking external scripts. > > Could you please elaborate on this? As far as I can tell, introducing a > separate flag is the only solution *not* breaking existing scripts. So > if you see the rub, I would like to know where exactly it is. I agree with Phil. AFAIC see this approach does not break existing scripts. Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer