From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752725Ab0CWEh1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:37:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41511 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750744Ab0CWEh0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:37:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA84607.7030304@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:39:35 +0800 From: Cong Wang User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091001) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Mackall 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 Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/3] bridge: make bridge support netpoll References: <20100322082059.4967.63492.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20100322082112.4967.5504.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <1269297307.3552.23.camel@calx> <4BA82186.3010204@redhat.com> <1269318470.3552.54.camel@calx> In-Reply-To: <1269318470.3552.54.camel@calx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks.