On Monday, September 17, 2012 4:00:04 pm Jack Vogel wrote: > So, you mean having them create their own buf ring I assume? Would be easy > enough to hack some code and try it if someone is so inclined?
No, that would be backwards (back to giving them a queue). Adrian's suggestion is to provide a mechanism so that the "real" interface (e.g. emX) can call back into the psuedo-interfaces on top of it (vlanX or bridgeX) when a TX completion interrupt fires so that the pseudo-interface would know to restart transmission. However, I think this is generally not ideal. I don't think we want an additional queue of pending packets in things like if_bridge(4) and vlan(4). If the underlying physical interface(s) are full, the packet should just get dropped rather than queued. Using if_transmit directly will do that while avoiding overhead. Also, making the callback work would also be a bit ungainly. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
