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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20090602090552.GA26611@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:05:52 +1000
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] virtio_net: return NETDEV_TX_BUSY instead of
	queueing an extra skb.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:46:04PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> 
> This effectively reverts 99ffc696d10b28580fe93441d627cf290ac4484c
> "virtio: wean net driver off NETDEV_TX_BUSY".
> 
> The complexity of queuing an skb (setting a tasklet to re-xmit) is
> questionable, especially once we get rid of the other reason for the
> tasklet in the next patch.
> 
> If the skb won't fit in the tx queue, just return NETDEV_TX_BUSY.  It
> might be frowned upon, but it's common and not going away any time
> soon.

This looks like a step backwards to me.  If we have to do this
to fix a bug, sure.  But just doing it for the sake of it smells
wrong.

Cheers,
-- 
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