Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-17 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 08:51 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:41:53 +0200 Phil Sutter p...@nwl.cc wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: [...] But adding a flag risks breaking external scripts. Could you please

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-17 Thread Jesper Dangaard Brouer
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 06:44:51 -0700 Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 08:51 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:41:53 +0200 Phil Sutter p...@nwl.cc wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: [...]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-17 Thread David Miller
From: Phil Sutter p...@nwl.cc Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:05 +0200 This series adds a new private net_device flag indicating that a device may (and probably should) be used without a queueing discipline attached to it. This is already common practice for many virtual device types like e.g.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-17 Thread Jesper Dangaard Brouer
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:41:53 +0200 Phil Sutter p...@nwl.cc wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: [...] But adding a flag risks breaking external scripts. Could you please elaborate on this? As far as I can tell, introducing a separate flag is the

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-14 Thread Phil Sutter
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:40:37 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer bro...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:49:50 -0700 Stephen Hemminger step...@networkplumber.org wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:05 +0200 Phil

[PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-13 Thread Phil Sutter
This series adds a new private net_device flag indicating that a device may (and probably should) be used without a queueing discipline attached to it. This is already common practice for many virtual device types like e.g. loopback, VLAN (802.1Q) or bridges (802.1D). The reason for this is that

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-13 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:05 +0200 Phil Sutter p...@nwl.cc wrote: Up to now, drivers being aware of the above applying to them set dev-tx_queue_len to zero to indicate no qdisc should be attached to the interface they drive and the kernel reacts upon this by assigning the noop qdisc instead

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-13 Thread Jesper Dangaard Brouer
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:49:50 -0700 Stephen Hemminger step...@networkplumber.org wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:05 +0200 Phil Sutter p...@nwl.cc wrote: Up to now, drivers being aware of the above applying to them set dev-tx_queue_len to zero to indicate no qdisc should be attached to the

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-13 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:40:37 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer bro...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:49:50 -0700 Stephen Hemminger step...@networkplumber.org wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:05 +0200 Phil Sutter p...@nwl.cc wrote: Up to now, drivers being aware of the above