On Thursday 08 May 2008 13:26:06 David Miller wrote: > From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 11:22:08 +0800 > > > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 03:48:06PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > So there's no way to actually fail in a TX handler? Drivers > > > are doomed to drop the packet, if they cannot handle it due to > > > ring overflow? > > > > You're supposed to stop the queue before the ring overflows. > > Right, and this is why drivers choose a TX wakeup threshold such > that they can accept an arbitrarily sized TSO frame. Dave, please allow me to ask a heretical question. Returning TX_BUSY has some appeal for virtio_net: is it fundamentally a flawed idea, or simply a matter of coding? Currently we have no virtio interface to ask how many descriptors are left; it's not clear that it's a fair question to ask, since for Xen it's depends on the actual buffers we're trying to put in the descirptors. Thanks, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
