[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201006151353.30529.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:53:29 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>, Shirley Ma <xma@...ibm.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-2.6.35] virtio_net: fix oom handling on tx
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 04:33:43 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:46:53AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > It makes more sense to have the device increment tx_droppped,
> > and return NETDEV_TX_OK. Skip the message (or make it a pr_debug()).
> > Network devices do not guarantee packet delivery, and if out of
> > resources then holding more data in the
> > queue is going to hurt not help the situation.
Yes, actually oom should be a ratelimited message and TX_OK, the other
case is a "should never happen" logic bug which warrants an error and
I don't care what it returns (whatever's easiest).
Please fix both at once since you're touching it.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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