On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:23:29PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:24:14PM +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote:
As TODO file suggested, drop packet instead of return NETDEV_TX_BUSY
when tx failed.
Really? That's ok to do? Seems like you are changing the logic of the
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:24:14PM +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote:
As TODO file suggested, drop packet instead of return NETDEV_TX_BUSY
when tx failed.
Really? That's ok to do? Seems like you are changing the logic of the
function a lot here, how does the code let userspace know packets were
dropped
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:24:14PM +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote:
As TODO file suggested, drop packet instead of return NETDEV_TX_BUSY
when tx failed.
Really? That's ok to do? Seems like you are changing the logic
As TODO file suggested, drop packet instead of return NETDEV_TX_BUSY
when tx failed.
et131x_tx calls function et131x_send_packets, I put the work of
et131x_send_packets directly into et131x_tx, and made some changes to
let the code more readable.
Signed-off-by: ZHAO Gang gamer...@gmail.com
---
