| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130402231319.GD28141@ws> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:13:19 -0300 From: Werner Almesberger <werner@...esberger.net> To: Alan Ott <alan@...nal11.us> Cc: Alexander Smirnov <alex.bluesman.smirnov@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-zigbee-devel <linux-zigbee-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Linux-zigbee-devel] [PATCH 1/6] mac802154: Immediately retry sending failed packets Alan Ott wrote: > it's now my opinion that we should _not_ try to retransmit at > all in mac802154/tx.c. I think the currently blocking workqueue design is ugly and quite contrary to how most the rest of the stack works. So anything that kills it has my blessing :-) I do wonder though why it was done like this in the first place. Just for convenience ? If we want to move towards an asynchronous interface, it could exist in parallel with the current one. That way, drivers could be migrated one by one. Having said that, the errors you get there may not be failed single transmissions on the air but some form of congestion in the driver or a problem with the device. But I don't think that's a valid reason for retrying the transmission at that level. - Werner -- 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