On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:51:18PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > If that was the policy it would be a quite dumb one and make netpoll > > > totally unsuitable for production use. I hope it is not. > > > > Suggest you rip __GFP_NOFAIL out of JBD before complaining about this. > > So you're suggesting we should become as bad at handling networking > errors as we are at handling IO errors?
No, I'm suggesting that the machine will hang forever sometimes and no amount of patching up netpoll or JBD, etc. will fix that. A hardware watchdog is a requirement for robust failover anyway and if you think otherwise, you're dreaming. And for reference, both are examples of theoretical should-never-happen memory allocation failures. > > > Dave, can you please apply the timeout patch anyways? > > > > Yes, let's go right over the maintainer's objections almost > > immediately after he chimes into the thread. I'll spare the list the > > colorful language this inspires. > > Sure when the maintainer has a unreasonable position on something > I think that's justified. Yours in this case is clearly unreasonable. What's clear is that you didn't like my position from my very first post in this thread and immediately went for the nuclear option without even trying to discuss it. Are you even aware that the patch we're discussing here is for a problem that has yet to be observed and that Steven's initial analysis had missed a couple things? -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
