All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@redhat.com>,
	bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [RFC Patch 2/3] bridge: make bridge support netpoll
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:00:59 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BA84B0B.3090908@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1269319861.3552.87.camel@calx>

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 12:39 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Matt Mackall wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 10:03 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>> Matt Mackall wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 04:17 -0400, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>>>>>> Based on the previous patch, make bridge support netpoll by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) implement the 4 methods to support netpoll for bridge;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) modify netpoll during forwarding packets in bridge;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) disable netpoll support of bridge when a netpoll-unabled device
>>>>>>    is added to bridge;
>>>>> Not sure if this is the right thing to do. Shouldn't we simply enable
>>>>> polling on all devices that support it and warn about the others (aka
>>>>> best effort)?
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's a good idea, because we check if a device
>>>> supports netpoll by checking if it has ndo_poll_controller method.
>>> Uh, what? If we have 5 devices on a bridge and 4 support netpoll, then
>>> shouldn't we just send netconsole messages to those 4 devices? Isn't
>>> this much better than simply refusing to work?
>>>
>> How could you let the bridge know netpoll is not sent to
>> the one that doesn't support netpoll during setup? This will
>> be complex, I am afraid.
> 
> I thought I saw a simple loop over bridge devices at poll time in your
> patch. So it should be a simple matter of skipping unsupported devices
> in that loop.

Nope, we need to check if the target address is owned by
a device that doesn't support netpoll or not, simple skipping
will not work.


> 
> But Dave thinks there a bigger problems here, so I recommend first
> figuring out the architecture issues, then we can get back to the policy
> issues.
> 

Ok. Thanks!

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@redhat.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>,
	bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/3] bridge: make bridge support netpoll
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:00:59 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BA84B0B.3090908@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1269319861.3552.87.camel@calx>

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 12:39 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Matt Mackall wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 10:03 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>> Matt Mackall wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 04:17 -0400, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>>>>>> Based on the previous patch, make bridge support netpoll by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) implement the 4 methods to support netpoll for bridge;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) modify netpoll during forwarding packets in bridge;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) disable netpoll support of bridge when a netpoll-unabled device
>>>>>>    is added to bridge;
>>>>> Not sure if this is the right thing to do. Shouldn't we simply enable
>>>>> polling on all devices that support it and warn about the others (aka
>>>>> best effort)?
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's a good idea, because we check if a device
>>>> supports netpoll by checking if it has ndo_poll_controller method.
>>> Uh, what? If we have 5 devices on a bridge and 4 support netpoll, then
>>> shouldn't we just send netconsole messages to those 4 devices? Isn't
>>> this much better than simply refusing to work?
>>>
>> How could you let the bridge know netpoll is not sent to
>> the one that doesn't support netpoll during setup? This will
>> be complex, I am afraid.
> 
> I thought I saw a simple loop over bridge devices at poll time in your
> patch. So it should be a simple matter of skipping unsupported devices
> in that loop.

Nope, we need to check if the target address is owned by
a device that doesn't support netpoll or not, simple skipping
will not work.


> 
> But Dave thinks there a bigger problems here, so I recommend first
> figuring out the architecture issues, then we can get back to the policy
> issues.
> 

Ok. Thanks!

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-03-23  5:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-22  8:17 [Bridge] [RFC Patch 1/3] netpoll: add generic support for bridge and bonding devices Amerigo Wang
2010-03-22  8:17 ` Amerigo Wang
2010-03-22  8:17 ` [Bridge] [RFC Patch 2/3] bridge: make bridge support netpoll Amerigo Wang
2010-03-22  8:17   ` Amerigo Wang
2010-03-22 22:35   ` [Bridge] " Matt Mackall
2010-03-22 22:35     ` Matt Mackall
2010-03-23  2:03     ` [Bridge] " Cong Wang
2010-03-23  2:03       ` Cong Wang
2010-03-23  4:27       ` [Bridge] " Matt Mackall
2010-03-23  4:27         ` Matt Mackall
2010-03-23  4:39         ` [Bridge] " Cong Wang
2010-03-23  4:39           ` Cong Wang
2010-03-23  4:51           ` [Bridge] " Matt Mackall
2010-03-23  4:51             ` Matt Mackall
2010-03-23  4:59             ` [Bridge] " David Miller
2010-03-23  4:59               ` David Miller
2010-03-23  5:00             ` Cong Wang [this message]
2010-03-23  5:00               ` Cong Wang
2010-03-23  4:57           ` [Bridge] " David Miller
2010-03-23  4:57             ` David Miller
2010-03-23  5:06             ` [Bridge] " Cong Wang
2010-03-23  5:06               ` Cong Wang
2010-03-22  8:17 ` [Bridge] [RFC Patch 3/3] bonding: make bonding " Amerigo Wang
2010-03-22  8:17   ` Amerigo Wang
2010-03-22 22:38   ` [Bridge] " Matt Mackall
2010-03-22 22:38     ` Matt Mackall
2010-03-22 23:36     ` [Bridge] " Jay Vosburgh
2010-03-22 23:36       ` Jay Vosburgh
2010-03-23  2:01       ` [Bridge] " Cong Wang
2010-03-23  2:01         ` Cong Wang
2010-03-23  0:56   ` [Bridge] " Andy Gospodarek
2010-03-23  0:56     ` Andy Gospodarek
2010-03-23  1:49     ` [Bridge] " Cong Wang
2010-03-23  1:49       ` Cong Wang
2010-03-22 22:31 ` [Bridge] [RFC Patch 1/3] netpoll: add generic support for bridge and bonding devices Matt Mackall
2010-03-22 22:31   ` Matt Mackall
2010-03-23  2:13   ` [Bridge] " Cong Wang
2010-03-23  2:13     ` Cong Wang
2010-03-23  3:49     ` [Bridge] " David Miller
2010-03-23  3:49       ` David Miller
2010-03-23  4:47       ` [Bridge] " Cong Wang
2010-03-23  4:47         ` Cong Wang
2010-03-23  4:58         ` [Bridge] " David Miller
2010-03-23  4:58           ` David Miller
2010-03-23  5:15           ` [Bridge] " Cong Wang
2010-03-23  5:15             ` Cong Wang
2010-03-23 12:11   ` [Bridge] " Jeff Moyer
2010-03-23 12:11     ` Jeff Moyer
2010-03-24  2:29     ` [Bridge] " Cong Wang
2010-03-24  2:29       ` Cong Wang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4BA84B0B.3090908@redhat.com \
    --to=amwang@redhat.com \
    --cc=bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=fubar@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=gospo@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.