From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E23C433E6 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 06:58:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFFE64D73 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 06:58:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232145AbhCAG6d (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2021 01:58:33 -0500 Received: from mxout70.expurgate.net ([194.37.255.70]:44897 "EHLO mxout70.expurgate.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231956AbhCAG6Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2021 01:58:25 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by relay.expurgate.net with smtp (Exim 4.90) (envelope-from ) id 1lGcTk-000Dkk-Ny; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 07:56:28 +0100 Received: from [195.243.126.94] (helo=securemail.tdt.de) by relay.expurgate.net with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90) (envelope-from ) id 1lGcTj-0004Jb-C3; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 07:56:27 +0100 Received: from securemail.tdt.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by securemail.tdt.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1593240041; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 07:56:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.dev.tdt.de (unknown [10.2.4.42]) by securemail.tdt.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15BEC240040; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 07:56:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.dev.tdt.de (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.dev.tdt.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23972018D; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 07:56:25 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 07:56:25 +0100 From: Martin Schiller To: Xie He Cc: Jakub Kicinski , Leon Romanovsky , "David S. Miller" , Linux X25 , Linux Kernel Network Developers , LKML , Krzysztof Halasa , Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4] net: hdlc_x25: Queue outgoing LAPB frames Organization: TDT AG In-Reply-To: References: <20210216201813.60394-1-xie.he.0141@gmail.com> <20210219103948.6644e61f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <906d8114f1965965749f1890680f2547@dev.tdt.de> Message-ID: X-Sender: ms@dev.tdt.de User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.16 X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate: clean X-purgate-ID: 151534::1614581788-0000B5A4-DEECE876/0/0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 2021-02-27 00:03, Xie He wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 6:21 AM Martin Schiller wrote: >> >> I have now had a look at it. It works as expected. >> I just wonder if it would not be more appropriate to call >> the lapb_register() already in x25_hdlc_open(), so that the layer2 >> (lapb) can already "work" before the hdlc_x25 interface is up. > > I think it's better not to keep LAPB running unless hdlc_x25 is up. > If I am the user, I would expect that when I change the X.25 interface > to the DOWN state, the LAPB protocol would be completely stopped and > the LAPB layer would not generate any new frames anymore (even if the > other side wants to connect), and when I change the X.25 interface > back to the UP state, it would be a fresh new start for the LAPB > protocol. > >> Also, I have a hard time assessing if such a wrap is really >> enforceable. > > Sorry. I don't understand what you mean. What "wrap" are you referring > to? I mean the change from only one hdlc interface to both hdlc and hdlc_x25. I can't estimate how many users are out there and how their setup looks like. > >> Unfortunately I have no idea how many users there actually are.