On Mar 11, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Qing Li wrote:
> What you raised is definitely a possibility and these fixes take the
> similar approach. I am going to try and go through each of these
> drivers in /sys/dev/ and converting them, very soon.
Is there any way we can pick up via an assertion that a
On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Qing Li wrote:
> You definitely have a very good point here. I was a bit surprised
> during debugging that the link state is not consistently initialized
> and by far not enforced across all of the drivers. Admittedly I checked
> the most commonly deployed devic
On Mar 12, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Qing Li wrote:
>> Is there any way we can pick up via an assertion that an interface driver
>> has failed to implement this functionality? This has never been a historic
>> requirement, so I suspect there are a lot of drivers floating around that
>> fail to meet th
On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Qing Li wrote:
> I like Julian's suggestion because it is simple and very low risk.
> And there isn't a need to check for interface type any more.
> Here is why:
>
> 1. The interfaces that are popular and modern are already supporting
>link_state. So for these dr
If we haven't converted that
>particular driver by then, we will update the driver if it's capable
> at that time.
>
> -- Qing
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Robert N. M. Watson
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Qing Li wrote
useful is adding a new IFCAP flag that allows
a driver to statically declare that it will someday set the link state. But I
don't think that helps with ECMP, that's just for the benefit of programs like
dhclient that care about future events rather than current state.
Robert
>
> --
On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I'm confused about Julian's proposal because it seems to me that we
> already know when a driver hasn't set or is unable to determine the link
> state: it will (should) be set to LINK_STATE_UNKNOWN by default.
>
> the question i
On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:56 PM, Qing Li wrote:
> Right now I like to implement Robert's suggestion of using if_capabilities
> field. I'd like to create a new flag, IFCAP_LINKSTATE_NOTIFY flag.
> The routing decision will check against the if_link_state if this bit
> is set.
>
> Only a handful of dr
On Mar 13, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Randall Stewart wrote:
> did not think of that.. we COULD possible do it another way.. a bit harder
> but possible.. i.e. have the delayed sack code actually look into
> the mbufs and see if its ipv4 or ipv6.. I thought about doing it
> that way but it takes more cycl
