[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <FCC0EC655BD1AE408C047268D1F5DF4C3BA61252@NASANEXMB10.na.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:12:14 -0800
From: "Lovich, Vitali" <vlovich@...lcomm.com>
To: Johann Baudy <johaahn@...il.com>
CC: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Packet socket: mmapped IO: PACKET_TX_RING
Hi Johann,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johann Baudy [mailto:johaahn@...il.com]
> Sent: November-12-08 4:10 AM
> To: Lovich, Vitali
> Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Packet socket: mmapped IO: PACKET_TX_RING
>
>
> I still believe that we should stop on non-recoverable errors. User
> must be informed that the packet has not been sent.
> If you skip the frame and set status to TP_STATUS_KERNEL. Frame will
> be lost and user will think that malformed frame has been transmitted.
Hence the reason I suggested we keep track of the statistics. If you think the user will actually care which frame it was that was rejected, then sure set it to TP_STATUS_LOSING. However, you should still continue with all remaining packets - returning from send won't matter since you'll have filled in the frame.
> I'm using TP_STATUS_LOSING in case of non-recoverable error. We can
> maybe introduce a socket option to chose the behavior for
> non-recoverable error.
There's no point in adding socket options to determine the communication protocol with userspace - it's completely redundant. If someone needs a custom way, they can write their own module or patch this one.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists