From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] netpoll: rework skb transmit queue Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:31:37 -0700 Message-ID: <20061020123137.3cd765af@freekitty> References: <20061019171814.281988608@osdl.org> <20061020.001530.35664340.davem@davemloft.net> <20061020084015.5c559326@localhost.localdomain> <20061020.122753.45515833.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:48329 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992738AbWJTTbl (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:31:41 -0400 To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20061020.122753.45515833.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:27:53 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Hemminger > Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:40:15 -0700 > > > The only user of the drop hook was netconsole, and I fixed that path. > > This probably breaks netdump, but that is out of tree, so it needs > > to fix itself. > > I believe that netdump needs to requeue things because dropping the > packet is simply not allowed, and the ->drop callback gives the > netdump code a way to handle things without actually dropping the > packet. If that's true, you can't just free the SKB on it. > > Are you sure your new TX strategy can avoid such drops properly? Yes, it has a queue. if it can't send it waits and retries. > > Please take a quick peek at the netdump code, it's available, and make > some reasonable effort to determine whether it can still work with > your new code. Where, I'm not digging in side some RHEL rpm patch pile to find it. -- Stephen Hemminger