Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 8:06 AM >> To: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KY Srinivasan >> <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; olaf@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> driverdev-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] hv_netvsc: Increase delay for >> RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE >> >> Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > We simulates a link down period for RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE >> message to >> > trigger DHCP renew. User daemons may need multiple seconds to trigger >> the >> > link down event. (e.g. ifplugd: 5sec, network-manager: 4sec.) So update >> > this link down period to 10 sec to properly trigger DHCP renew. >> > >> >> I probably don't follow: why do we need sucha a delay? If (with real >> hardware) you plug network cable out and in one second you plug it in >> you'll get DHCP renewed, right? >> >> When I introduced RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE handling by >> emulating a >> pair of up/down events I put 2 second delay to make link_watch happy (as >> we only handle 1 event per second there) but 10 seconds sounds to much >> to me. > > In the test on Hyper-V, our software on host side wants to trigger DHCP > renew by sending only a RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE message to > a guest without physically unplug the cable. But, this message didn't trigger > DHCP renew within 2 seconds. The VM is Centos 7.1 using Networkmanager, > which needs 4 seconds after link down to renew IP. Some daemon, like > ifplugd, needs 5 sec to renew. That's why we increase the simulated link > down time for RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE message. Yes, I understand the motivation but sorry if I was unclear with my question. I meant to say that with physical network adapters it's possible to trigger same two events by plugging your cable out and then plugging it back in and it is certailnly doable in less than 10 seconds. NetworkManager or whoever is supposed to handle these events and we don't really care how fast -- I think that 4 or 5 seconds mentioned above is just an observation. > >> > @@ -1009,8 +1012,11 @@ static void netvsc_link_change(struct >> work_struct *w) >> > netif_tx_stop_all_queues(net); >> > event->event = RNDIS_STATUS_MEDIA_CONNECT; >> > spin_lock_irqsave(&ndev_ctx->lock, flags); >> > - list_add_tail(&event->list, &ndev_ctx- >> >reconfig_events); >> > + list_add(&event->list, &ndev_ctx->reconfig_events); >> >> Why? Adding to tail was here to not screw the order of events... > > The RNDIS_STATUS_MEDIA_CONNECT message triggers two "half" events -- > link down & up. After "link down", we want the paired "link up" to be the > immediate next event. Since the function picks the next event from the list > head, so it should be inserted to list head. Otherwise, the possible existing > events in the list will be processed in the middle of these two "half events" > -- link down & up. Ah, yes, you're probably right. -- Vitaly _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
