[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090620205026.05219c33.lk-netdev@lk-netdev.nosense.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:50:26 +0930
From: Mark Smith <lk-netdev@...netdev.nosense.org>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] econet: have failed ec_queue_packet() call return
NET_RX_BAD
Hi Florian,
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:53:25 +0200
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
> Mark Smith <lk-netdev@...netdev.nosense.org> wrote:
> > econet_rcv() calls ec_queue_packet(). The return from ec_queue_packet()
> > is the direct result of a call to sock_queue_rcv_skb(). Error returns
> > from ec_queue_packet() and therefore sock_queue_rcv_skb() are due to
> > kernel errors, so have econet_rcv() return NET_RX_BAD in this case.
>
> What about doing this instead?
>
I think there is value in distinguishing between network/protocol
errors and kernel errors. It helps determine where the fault might lie
- in the network somewhere, or isolated to the receiving host. In
larger organisations there is typically a networks support team and a
hosts/sys admin team. Hints such as this that help determine who's
problem the fault is to deal with can be a big time saver (being a
networking person on one of these sorts of teams, I'm scrathing an
itch :-) )
If these econet patches are accepted, I'll send through similar patches
for the other protocols in the kernel where necessary.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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