From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Schiller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4] net: hdlc_x25: Queue outgoing LAPB frames Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 07:56:25 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20210216201813.60394-1-xie.he.0141@gmail.com> <20210219103948.6644e61f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <906d8114f1965965749f1890680f2547@dev.tdt.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Xie He Cc: Jakub Kicinski , Leon Romanovsky , "David S. Miller" , Linux X25 , Linux Kernel Network Developers , LKML , Krzysztof Halasa , Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On 2021-02-27 00:03, Xie He wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 6:21 AM Martin Schiller wrote: >> >> I have now had a look at it. It works as expected. >> I just wonder if it would not be more appropriate to call >> the lapb_register() already in x25_hdlc_open(), so that the layer2 >> (lapb) can already "work" before the hdlc_x25 interface is up. > > I think it's better not to keep LAPB running unless hdlc_x25 is up. > If I am the user, I would expect that when I change the X.25 interface > to the DOWN state, the LAPB protocol would be completely stopped and > the LAPB layer would not generate any new frames anymore (even if the > other side wants to connect), and when I change the X.25 interface > back to the UP state, it would be a fresh new start for the LAPB > protocol. > >> Also, I have a hard time assessing if such a wrap is really >> enforceable. > > Sorry. I don't understand what you mean. What "wrap" are you referring > to? I mean the change from only one hdlc interface to both hdlc and hdlc_x25. I can't estimate how many users are out there and how their setup looks like. > >> Unfortunately I have no idea how many users there actually are.