On 11/02/2016 05:52 PM, Gao Feng wrote:
> 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 ?
There is no much choice you need to return a correct value from the
netdev_tx_t enum, which NET_RX_DROP is not part of, so that probably
means using NETDEV_TX_OK here, the packet has been freed, and there is
no flow control problem mandating the return of NETDEV_TX_BUSY it seems...
--
Florian
