Matt Mackall wrote: > 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. Nope, we need to check if the target address is owned by a device that doesn't support netpoll or not, simple skipping will not work. > > 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. > Ok. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
