From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/46] Clean up RX copybreak and DMA handling Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 03:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20110711.031128.635136897396133223.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20110711091649.GA6380@rere.qmqm.pl> <20110711.022403.532062888492669176.davem@davemloft.net> <20110711094723.GC6380@rere.qmqm.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=euc-kr Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:34449 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751733Ab1GKKMo (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:12:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110711094723.GC6380@rere.qmqm.pl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =46rom: Micha=A9=A9 Miros=A9=A9aw Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:47:23 +0200 > Catch 22: The chips are not tested because they have always free buff= ers, > they are provided with endless rx buffers because they are not being > tested. I'd rather test them well rather than workaround a phantom is= sue. > Tripping on empty free rx buffer ring is still possible even with sch= eme > #1 (eg. with lots of NICs receiving heavy traffic) --- just harder to > recognise and debug (if it breaks at all) when it happens. I do not support taking this risk. Please do not submit patches which move away from the long standing allocation failure handling scheme.