[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BA84607.7030304@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:39:35 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...hat.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/3] bridge: make bridge support netpoll
Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 10:03 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Matt Mackall wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 04:17 -0400, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>>>> Based on the previous patch, make bridge support netpoll by:
>>>>
>>>> 1) implement the 4 methods to support netpoll for bridge;
>>>>
>>>> 2) modify netpoll during forwarding packets in bridge;
>>>>
>>>> 3) disable netpoll support of bridge when a netpoll-unabled device
>>>> is added to bridge;
>>> Not sure if this is the right thing to do. Shouldn't we simply enable
>>> polling on all devices that support it and warn about the others (aka
>>> best effort)?
>>>
>> I don't think it's a good idea, because we check if a device
>> supports netpoll by checking if it has ndo_poll_controller method.
>
> Uh, what? If we have 5 devices on a bridge and 4 support netpoll, then
> shouldn't we just send netconsole messages to those 4 devices? Isn't
> this much better than simply refusing to work?
>
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.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists