Messages in this thread | | | Subject | [2.6.12-rc4 patch] Disable queueing when carrier is lost. | Date | Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:57:40 -0600 | From | "Davda, Bhavesh P \(Bhavesh\)" <> |
| |
Didn't get a response to a personal e-mail, so forwarding it on to the LKML for insight.
Thanks!
- Bhavesh
-----Original Message----- From: Davda, Bhavesh P (Bhavesh) Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:15 PM To: 'tommy.christensen@tpack.net' Cc: 'herbert@gondor.apana.org.au'; 'davem@davemloft.net' Subject: Disable queueing when carrier is lost.
Folks,
Having run into the same issue that you ran into, with the 2.6.11 kernel, I was tempted to do something very similar to this patch that made it into 2.6.12-rc4.
Before actually "reinventing the wheel" I figured I would google around for how others are dealing with it, and found out about this just a few minutes ago.
I was wondering, do you know of any down sides to doing this, and what can be the up side of queueing on ethernet devices any time the link (carrier) is lost? I would have thought the "correct" and "safe" behaviour would be to drop the packets on the floor when the link goes down, and let upper layers deal with it.
Thanks
- Bhavesh
Bhavesh P. Davda | Distinguished Member of Technical Staff | Avaya | 1300 West 120th Avenue | B3-B03 | Westminster, CO 80234 | U.S.A. | Voice/Fax: 303.538.4438 | bhavesh@avaya.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |