Hi Herbert, > Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 06/19/2009 10:06:13 AM: > > > We either remove the API, or fix it. I think fixing it is better, because my > > driver will be simpler and it's obvious noone wants to rewrite 50 drivers and > > break several of them. > > My preference is obviously in the long term removal of TX_BUSY. > Due to resource constraints that cannot be done immediately. So > at least we should try to stop its proliferation. > > BTW removing TX_BUSY does not mean that your driver has to stay > complicated. As I have said repeatedly your driver should be > checking the stop-queue condition after transmission, not before. > > In fact queueing it in the driver is just as bad as return TX_BUSY! I was curious about "queueing it in the driver" part: why is this bad? Do you anticipate any performance problems, or does it break QoS, or something else I have missed? thanks, - KK _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
