[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1269318470.3552.54.camel@calx>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:27:50 -0500
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...hat.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/3] bridge: make bridge support netpoll
On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 10:03 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 04:17 -0400, Amerigo Wang wrote:
> >> Based on the previous patch, make bridge support netpoll by:
> >>
> >> 1) implement the 4 methods to support netpoll for bridge;
> >>
> >> 2) modify netpoll during forwarding packets in bridge;
> >>
> >> 3) disable netpoll support of bridge when a netpoll-unabled device
> >> is added to bridge;
> >
> > Not sure if this is the right thing to do. Shouldn't we simply enable
> > polling on all devices that support it and warn about the others (aka
> > best effort)?
> >
>
> I don't think it's a good idea, because we check if a device
> supports netpoll by checking if it has ndo_poll_controller method.
Uh, what? If we have 5 devices on a bridge and 4 support netpoll, then
shouldn't we just send netconsole messages to those 4 devices? Isn't
this much better than simply refusing to work?
--
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux
--
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