On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 12:39 +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > Matt Mackall wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 10:03 +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > >> Matt Mackall wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 04:17 -0400, Amerigo Wang wrote: > >>>> Based on the previous patch, make bridge support netpoll by: > >>>> > >>>> 1) implement the 4 methods to support netpoll for bridge; > >>>> > >>>> 2) modify netpoll during forwarding packets in bridge; > >>>> > >>>> 3) disable netpoll support of bridge when a netpoll-unabled device > >>>> is added to bridge; > >>> Not sure if this is the right thing to do. Shouldn't we simply enable > >>> polling on all devices that support it and warn about the others (aka > >>> best effort)? > >>> > >> I don't think it's a good idea, because we check if a device > >> supports netpoll by checking if it has ndo_poll_controller method. > > > > Uh, what? If we have 5 devices on a bridge and 4 support netpoll, then > > shouldn't we just send netconsole messages to those 4 devices? Isn't > > this much better than simply refusing to work? > > > > How could you let the bridge know netpoll is not sent to > the one that doesn't support netpoll during setup? This will > be complex, I am afraid. I thought I saw a simple loop over bridge devices at poll time in your patch. So it should be a simple matter of skipping unsupported devices in that loop. But Dave thinks there a bigger problems here, so I recommend first figuring out the architecture issues, then we can get back to the policy issues. -- http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
