From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Ostrowski Subject: Re: [PATCH, untested] Support for PPPOE on SMP Date: 25 Jun 2003 18:06:54 -0400 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <1056578813.27267.8.camel@brick.watson.ibm.com> References: <20030625072602.529AF2C0B9@lists.samba.org> <1056547262.1945.1436.camel@brick.watson.ibm.com> <20030625.143334.85380461.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, Paul MacKerras , netdev@oss.sgi.com, fcusack@samba.org, carlson@workingcode.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20030625.143334.85380461.davem@redhat.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 17:33, David S. Miller wrote: > Why don't you just queue the payload packets in a "resolution queue" > until the socket is created? Just make the resolution queue packets > timeout using a value that will easily exceed any reasonable PPP > negotiation time. > > All this ordered packet arrival shit is just beyond stupid. Exactly this mechanism is what I had in mind. The open question remaining is if there are any protocols which can be affected by packets being processed out of order. Some people have suggested that there are. If not, then there's not much to discuss. Can anyone comment on this decisively, either way? -- Michal Ostrowski