From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/3] bridge: make bridge support netpoll Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:06:12 +0800 Message-ID: <4BA84C44.4030707@redhat.com> References: <4BA82186.3010204@redhat.com> <1269318470.3552.54.camel@calx> <4BA84607.7030304@redhat.com> <20100322.215703.77339158.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mpm@selenic.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, gospo@redhat.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, fubar@us.ibm.com To: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100322.215703.77339158.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: Cong Wang > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:39:35 +0800 > >> 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. > > Why does this matter at all? Because currently we check netpoll support by ->ndo_poll_controller, for example, tap driver doesn't have ->ndo_poll_controller now, if I choose the target "@192.168.0.2/br0" where "192.168.0.2" is owned by "tap0" which is managed by "br0", netconsole may not work. > > I told you in another mail that we should do away with > these callbacks and all the crazy 'npinfo' assignments > and just do it in the generic code. I think ->ndo_poll_controller is not in the case that you talked about. Thanks.