> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 2:29 AM
> > The EAGAIN error doesn't normally happen, because we set the hi water
> > mark
> > to stop send queue.
>
> This is not true since only txq was stopped which means only
-Original Message-
From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 2:29 AM
The EAGAIN error doesn't normally happen, because we set the hi water
mark
to stop send queue.
This is not true since only txq was stopped which means only network
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Haiyang Zhang
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 1:49 AM
>> btw, I find during netvsc_start_xmit(), ret was change to
-ENOSPC
>> when
>> queue_sends[q_idx] < 1. But non
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 1:49 AM
> >> btw, I find during netvsc_start_xmit(), ret was change to -ENOSPC
> >> when
> >> queue_sends[q_idx] < 1. But non of the caller check -ENOSPC in fact?
> >
> > In this case,
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Haiyang Zhang haiya...@microsoft.com
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 1:49 AM
btw, I find during netvsc_start_xmit(), ret was change to
-ENOSPC
when
-Original Message-
From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 1:49 AM
btw, I find during netvsc_start_xmit(), ret was change to -ENOSPC
when
queue_sends[q_idx] 1. But non of the caller check -ENOSPC in fact?
In this case, we don't request
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Haiyang Zhang
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 5:25 AM
> + if (ret != 0) {
> + if (section_index != NETVSC_INVALID_INDEX)
> +
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Haiyang Zhang
haiya...@microsoft.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 5:25 AM
+ if (ret != 0) {
+ if (section_index != NETVSC_INVALID_INDEX)
+
From: Haiyang Zhang
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:34:49 -0800
> The existing code frees the skb in EAGAIN case, in which the skb will be
> retried from upper layer and used again.
> Also, the existing code doesn't free send buffer slot in error case, because
> there is no completion message for
From: Haiyang Zhang haiya...@microsoft.com
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:34:49 -0800
The existing code frees the skb in EAGAIN case, in which the skb will be
retried from upper layer and used again.
Also, the existing code doesn't free send buffer slot in error case, because
there is no
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 5:25 AM
> > + if (ret != 0) {
> > + if (section_index != NETVSC_INVALID_INDEX)
> > + netvsc_free_send_slot(net_device, section_index);
>
> What if ret is
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Haiyang Zhang
wrote:
The existing code frees the skb in EAGAIN case, in which the skb will
be
retried from upper layer and used again.
Also, the existing code doesn't free send buffer slot in error case,
because
there is no completion message for unsent
-Original Message-
From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasow...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 5:25 AM
+ if (ret != 0) {
+ if (section_index != NETVSC_INVALID_INDEX)
+ netvsc_free_send_slot(net_device, section_index);
What if ret is -EINVAL or
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Haiyang Zhang haiya...@microsoft.com
wrote:
The existing code frees the skb in EAGAIN case, in which the skb will
be
retried from upper layer and used again.
Also, the existing code doesn't free send buffer slot in error case,
because
there is no completion
14 matches
Mail list logo
