Paul Thomas wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:51 AM, christian pellegrin > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:35 PM, christian pellegrin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I can do it and have a separate patch om my site if someone needs the >>> OSM. Paul told me that his user-case is that he doesn't want to have >>> the mcp2515 trying to resend the packet for many times if no one is >>> responding. I can see the problem: when this happens also other >>> packets are stalled on the tx queue. I could implement the use of all >> hmmm perhaps I said a really stupid thing. If there is no acknowledge >> evidently there are 0 nodes on the bus or the bus is fucked-up. So >> it's not a problem if all the queue is stalled till there is something >> alive on the bus. >> >> >> -- >> Christian Pellegrin, see http://www.evolware.org/chri/ >> "Real Programmers don't play tennis, or any other sport which requires >> you to change clothes. Mountain climbing is OK, and Real Programmers >> wear their climbing boots to work in case a mountain should suddenly >> spring up in the middle of the computer room." >> > > Yes, I had originally thought osm was needed because when I watched an open > bus. I would see continuous traffic after a send. I didn't want to get into > a situation where if one of 4 nodes died the retries to the dead node ate up > the whole bus, but that's NOT what I see. As long as there is 1 good node, a > packet to a non-existent node is not retried.
Yes, that's normal CAN behavior. The retries happen if there is no other node responding. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
