On Saturday 14 June 2008 00:14:00 Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 16:34 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 May 2008 21:06:26 Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 17:42 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > If we fail to transmit a packet, we assume the queue is
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 16:34 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> On Tuesday 27 May 2008 21:06:26 Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 17:42 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
If we fail to transmit a packet, we assume the queue is full and put
the skb into last_xmi
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 16:34 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 May 2008 21:06:26 Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 17:42 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > If we fail to transmit a packet, we assume the queue is full and put
> > > the skb into last_xmit_skb. However, if more
Rusty Russell wrote:
> If we fail to transmit a packet, we assume the queue is full and put
> the skb into last_xmit_skb. However, if more space frees up before we
> xmit it, we loop, and the result can be transmitting the same skb twice.
>
> Fix is simple: set skb to NULL if we've used it in som
On Tuesday 27 May 2008 21:06:26 Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 17:42 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > If we fail to transmit a packet, we assume the queue is full and put
> > the skb into last_xmit_skb. However, if more space frees up before we
> > xmit it, we loop, and the result c
