On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 03:17:54 -0800 Xie He wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 2:38 AM Martin Schiller <ms@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Well, one could argue that we would have to repair these drivers, but I > > don't think that will get us anywhere. > > Yeah... One problem I see with the Linux project is the lack of > docs/specs. Often we don't know what is right and what is wrong. More of a historic thing than a requirement AFAIK. Some software devices, e.g. loopback will not generate carrier events. But in this case looks like all the devices Martin wants to handle are lapb. > > From this point of view it will be the best to handle the NETDEV_UP in > > the lapb event handler and establish the link analog to the > > NETDEV_CHANGE event if the carrier is UP. > > Thanks! This way we can make sure LAPB would automatically connect in > all situations. > > Since we'll have a netif_carrier_ok check in NETDEV_UP handing, it > might make the code look prettier to also have a netif_carrier_ok > check in NETDEV_GOING_DOWN handing (for symmetry). Just a suggestion. > You can do whatever looks good to you :) Xie other than this the patches look good to you? Martin should I expect a respin to follow Xie's suggestion or should I apply v4?
