On 2020-11-26 01:08, Xie He wrote:
Hi Martin,
Since we are going to assume lapb->state would remain in LAPB_STATE_0
when
the carrier is down (as understood by me. Right?), could we add a check
in
lapb_connect_request to reject the upper layer's "connect" instruction
when
the carrier is down?
On 2020-11-25 22:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:39:35 +0100 Martin Schiller wrote:
This patch allows layer2 (LAPB) to react to netdev events itself and
avoids the detour via layer3 (X.25).
1. Establish layer2 on NETDEV_UP events, if the carrier is already up.
2. Call lapb_dis
Hi Martin,
Since we are going to assume lapb->state would remain in LAPB_STATE_0 when
the carrier is down (as understood by me. Right?), could we add a check in
lapb_connect_request to reject the upper layer's "connect" instruction when
the carrier is down? Like this:
diff --git a/include/linux/l
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:39:35 +0100 Martin Schiller wrote:
> This patch allows layer2 (LAPB) to react to netdev events itself and
> avoids the detour via layer3 (X.25).
>
> 1. Establish layer2 on NETDEV_UP events, if the carrier is already up.
>
> 2. Call lapb_disconnect_request() on NETDEV_GOING_
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:40 AM Martin Schiller wrote:
>
> This patch allows layer2 (LAPB) to react to netdev events itself and
> avoids the detour via layer3 (X.25).
>
> 1. Establish layer2 on NETDEV_UP events, if the carrier is already up.
>
> 2. Call lapb_disconnect_request() on NETDEV_GOING_DO
This patch allows layer2 (LAPB) to react to netdev events itself and
avoids the detour via layer3 (X.25).
1. Establish layer2 on NETDEV_UP events, if the carrier is already up.
2. Call lapb_disconnect_request() on NETDEV_GOING_DOWN events to signal
the peer that the connection will go down.
6 matches
Mail list logo
