[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7ef5474a-f5d6-4afd-995d-16ecbfe00fa3@davidwei.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 07:27:48 +0900
From: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
razor@...ckwall.org, pabeni@...hat.com, willemb@...gle.com, sdf@...ichev.me,
john.fastabend@...il.com, martin.lau@...nel.org, jordan@...fe.io,
maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com, toke@...hat.com,
yangzhenze@...edance.com, wangdongdong.6@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 11/16] netkit: Implement rtnl_link_ops->alloc
and ndo_queue_create
On 2026-02-01 09:19, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 23:28:25 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> + if (netif_running(dev))
>> + netif_carrier_off(dev);
>> + err = netif_set_real_num_rx_queues(dev, rxq_count_new);
>> + if (netif_running(dev))
>> + netif_carrier_on(dev);
>
> Why do we need to flap the carrier?
> (If there's a reason perhaps add a comment?)
I saw veth doing this in veth_set_channels(): off, set num rx queues,
then on. But it doesn't sound like there's actually a need? I'll test
without this and remove it if everything works.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists