On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 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. > > I meant using if_transmit, not the callback, would it not then need a buf ring? Jack _______________________________________________ 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"
