From: Ranjit Manomohan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Heres a new version which does a copy instead of the clone to avoid
the double cloning issue.
I still very much dislike this patch because it is creating
1 more clone per packet than is actually necessary and
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Ranjit Manomohan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Heres a new version which does a copy instead of the clone to avoid
the double cloning issue.
I still very much dislike this patch because it is creating
1 more clone per packet
On Mon, 15 May 2006 16:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Ranjit Manomohan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006, David S. Miller wrote:
From: Ranjit Manomohan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Heres a new version which does a copy instead of the clone to avoid
From: Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:41:01 -0700
kfree_skb(NULL) is legal so the conditional here is unneeded.
But the increased calls to kfree_skb(NULL) would probably bring the
unlikely() hordes descending on kfree_skb, so maybe:
And unfortunately as Patrick
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:41:01 -0700
kfree_skb(NULL) is legal so the conditional here is unneeded.
But the increased calls to kfree_skb(NULL) would probably bring the
unlikely() hordes descending on kfree_skb, so maybe:
David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Other implementation possibility suggestions welcome :-)
I see two possibilities:
1) Move the af_packet hook into the NIC driver.
2) Rethink the lockless tx setup. If all NICs followed the tg3 and
replaced spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock then we
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 02:21:27AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:41:01 -0700
kfree_skb(NULL) is legal so the conditional here is unneeded.
But the increased calls to kfree_skb(NULL) would
Herbert Xu wrote:
David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Other implementation possibility suggestions welcome :-)
I see two possibilities:
1) Move the af_packet hook into the NIC driver.
2) Rethink the lockless tx setup. If all NICs followed the tg3 and
replaced
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 03:17:59AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
3) Clone the skb and have dev_queue_xmit_nit() consume it.
That should actually be pretty easy.
Unfortunately that would mean an unconditional copy for all TSO packets
on NICs such as tg3/e1000. These drivers have to modify
Patrick McHardy wrote:
3) Clone the skb and have dev_queue_xmit_nit() consume it.
That should actually be pretty easy.
On second thought, thats not so great either. netdev_nit
just globally signals that there are some taps, but we
don't know if they're interested in a specific packet.
-
To
From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:22:21 +0200
Patrick McHardy wrote:
3) Clone the skb and have dev_queue_xmit_nit() consume it.
That should actually be pretty easy.
On second thought, thats not so great either. netdev_nit
just globally signals that
Ranjit Manomohan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch fixes the problem where tcpdump shows duplicate packets
while tracing outbound packets on drivers which support lockless
transmit. The patch changes the current behaviour to tracing the
packets only on a successful transmit.
There was no
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 03:10:34 -0700
It's a bit sad to be taking a clone of a clone like this.
Avoidable?
Besides, clones of clones are illegal, if it's already a clone
you must make a copy.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
This patch fixes the problem where tcpdump shows duplicate packets
while tracing outbound packets on drivers which support lockless
transmit. The patch changes the current behaviour to tracing the
packets only on a successful transmit.
Signed-off-by: Ranjit Manomohan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
14 matches
Mail list logo
