On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:12:09PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 01:39:16PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:42:37AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > This is necessary because once we return false
On 7/27/15 21:16, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:12:09PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 01:39:16PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:42:37AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
This is necessary because once we return false from .ca
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:12:09PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 01:39:16PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:42:37AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > This is necessary because once we return false from .can_receive, we
> > > need to flush the queue
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 01:39:16PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:42:37AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > This is necessary because once we return false from .can_receive, we
> > need to flush the queue when the .can_receive conditions become true
> > again, (for example whe
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:42:37AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> This is necessary because once we return false from .can_receive, we
> need to flush the queue when the .can_receive conditions become true
> again, (for example when more buffer is available).
>
> We can rely on net_rx_packet (which che
This is necessary because once we return false from .can_receive, we
need to flush the queue when the .can_receive conditions become true
again, (for example when more buffer is available).
We can rely on net_rx_packet (which checks the same conditions) to drop
the packet if the device is not read
