Hi Cong,
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:59 AM, <f...@ikuai8.com> wrote:
>> From: Gao Feng <f...@ikuai8.com>
>>
>> Current veth_xmit always returns NETDEV_TX_OK whatever if it is really
>> sent successfully. Now return the actual value instead of NETDEV_TX_OK
>> always.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <f...@ikuai8.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/veth.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/veth.c b/drivers/net/veth.c
>> index fbc853e..769a3bd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/veth.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/veth.c
>> @@ -111,15 +111,18 @@ static netdev_tx_t veth_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> struct net_device *dev)
>> struct veth_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
>> struct net_device *rcv;
>> int length = skb->len;
>> + int ret = NETDEV_TX_OK;
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> rcv = rcu_dereference(priv->peer);
>> if (unlikely(!rcv)) {
>> kfree_skb(skb);
>> + ret = NET_RX_DROP;
>
>
> Returning NET_RX_DROP doesn't look correct in a xmit function.
Yes. But I don't find good macro.
NETDEV_TX_BUSY or NET_RX_DROP, which is better ?
Thanks
Feng
>
>
>> goto drop;
>> }
>>
>> - if (likely(dev_forward_skb(rcv, skb) == NET_RX_SUCCESS)) {
>> + ret = dev_forward_skb(rcv, skb);
>> + if (likely(ret == NET_RX_SUCCESS)) {
>> struct pcpu_vstats *stats = this_cpu_ptr(dev->vstats);
>>
>> u64_stats_update_begin(&stats->syncp);
>> @@ -131,7 +134,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t veth_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
>> net_device *dev)
>> atomic64_inc(&priv->dropped);
>> }
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> - return NETDEV_TX_OK;
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>>
