From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752231Ab0CWE1y (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:27:54 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([173.11.57.241]:54811 "EHLO waste.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750937Ab0CWE1x (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:27:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/3] bridge: make bridge support netpoll From: Matt Mackall To: Cong Wang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andy Gospodarek , Neil Horman , Stephen Hemminger , bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jay Vosburgh , David Miller In-Reply-To: <4BA82186.3010204@redhat.com> References: <20100322082059.4967.63492.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20100322082112.4967.5504.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <1269297307.3552.23.camel@calx> <4BA82186.3010204@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:27:50 -0500 Message-ID: <1269318470.3552.54.camel@calx> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? -- http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux