From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.k...@citrix.com> Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 17:49:37 +0100
> David Vrabel pointed out an important question in a reply to the > previous version of this series: this patch deschedule NAPI if the > carrier goes down. The backend doesn't receive packets from the > guest. DavidVr and others said we shouldn't do this, the guest should > be able to transmit even if it's not able/willing to receive. Other > drivers doesn't deschedule NAPI at carrier off as well, however the > "carrier off" information comes from the hardware, not from an > untrusted guest who is not posting buffers on the receive ring. > I don't have any good argument why I did it the current way, other > than a hunch that it feels more natural. > David, do you have an opinion on that? Unless you have a strong reason for doing so, I don't think disabling receives when the TX path backs up is necessary. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
