netdev - Re: Why do we use RX queue mapping for TX?

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1424301248.4942.99.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:14:08 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why do we use RX queue mapping for TX?

On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 14:11 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2) This breaks the queue mapping specified by an skbedit action,
> > since for TX queues the index starts with 0 while for RX it starts with 1
> > (for some reason I don't see yet). There is at least a mismatch.
> 
> So queue 0 is reserved for TX, at least for bonding queue mapping.

It seems you missed that bonding ndo_select_queue() is rather special.


--
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