On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:12:55 -0700, Shirley Ma <mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Shirley Ma <xma@xxxxxxxxxx>
This is fascinating... and deeply weird.
OK, what's the difference between calling xmit_skb and ignoring failure,
and this patch which figures out it's going to fail before calling
xmit_skb?
ie. what if you *just* delete this:
> @@ -605,20 +620,6 @@ static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> skb_orphan(skb);
> nf_reset(skb);
>
> - /* Apparently nice girls don't return TX_BUSY; stop the queue
> - * before it gets out of hand. Naturally, this wastes entries. */
> - if (capacity < 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
> - netif_stop_queue(dev);
> - if (unlikely(!virtqueue_enable_cb(vi->svq))) {
> - /* More just got used, free them then recheck. */
> - capacity += free_old_xmit_skbs(vi);
> - if (capacity >= 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
> - netif_start_queue(dev);
> - virtqueue_disable_cb(vi->svq);
> - }
> - }
> - }
> -
> return NETDEV_TX_OK;
> }
Thanks!
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
