netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/4] virtio_net: return NETDEV_TX_BUSY instead of queueing an extra skb.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:54:59 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Matt Carlson <mcarlson@...adcom.com>
Cc:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] virtio_net: return NETDEV_TX_BUSY instead of
	queueing an extra skb.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:25:29AM -0700, Matt Carlson wrote:
>
> As was said elsewhere, from the driver writer's perspective every packet
> that has already been submitted (queued) to the hardware cannot be
> preempted.  Slightly extending that logic doesn't seem like that much of
> a problem, especially if it saves the troublesome requeuing logic higher up.

I think this is pretty much the same as returning TX_BUSY :)

Do you have access to one of these buggy cards? Can you run some
tests to see what the difference between TSO and GSO is on them?

Thanks,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html