Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-17 Thread David Miller
From: Phil Sutter Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:05 +0200 > This series adds a new private net_device flag indicating that a device may > (and probably should) be used without a queueing discipline attached to it. > This is already common practice for many virtual device types like e.g. > loopback,

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-17 Thread Jesper Dangaard Brouer
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 06:44:51 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 08:51 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:41:53 +0200 Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > > > But adding

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-17 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 08:51 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:41:53 +0200 Phil Sutter wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > [...] > > > > > > But adding a flag risks breaking external scripts. > > > > Could you please elabo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-16 Thread Jesper Dangaard Brouer
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:41:53 +0200 Phil Sutter wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: [...] > > > > But adding a flag risks breaking external scripts. > > Could you please elaborate on this? As far as I can tell, introducing a > separate flag is the only so

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-14 Thread Phil Sutter
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:40:37 +0200 > Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:49:50 -0700 > > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:05 +0200 > > > Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > > > Up

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-13 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:40:37 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:49:50 -0700 > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:05 +0200 > > Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > Up to now, drivers being aware of the above applying to them set > > > dev->tx_queue_len t

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-13 Thread Jesper Dangaard Brouer
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:49:50 -0700 Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:05 +0200 > Phil Sutter wrote: > > > Up to now, drivers being aware of the above applying to them set > > dev->tx_queue_len to zero to indicate no qdisc should be attached to the > > interface they drive and

Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-13 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:01:05 +0200 Phil Sutter wrote: > Up to now, drivers being aware of the above applying to them set > dev->tx_queue_len to zero to indicate no qdisc should be attached to the > interface they drive and the kernel reacts upon this by assigning the noop > qdisc instead of the d

[PATCH 0/2] net: introduce IFF_NO_QUEUE as successor of zero tx_queue_len

2015-08-13 Thread Phil Sutter
This series adds a new private net_device flag indicating that a device may (and probably should) be used without a queueing discipline attached to it. This is already common practice for many virtual device types like e.g. loopback, VLAN (802.1Q) or bridges (802.1D). The reason for this is that th