On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 23:46 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > This effectively reverts 99ffc696d10b28580fe93441d627cf290ac4484c > "virtio: wean net driver off NETDEV_TX_BUSY". > > The complexity of queuing an skb (setting a tasklet to re-xmit) is > questionable,
It certainly adds some subtle complexities to start_xmit() > especially once we get rid of the other reason for the > tasklet in the next patch. > > If the skb won't fit in the tx queue, just return NETDEV_TX_BUSY. It > might be frowned upon, but it's common and not going away any time > soon. > > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]> > Cc: Herbert Xu <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 49 > ++++++++++------------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > > @@ -526,27 +517,14 @@ again: > /* Free up any pending old buffers before queueing new ones. */ > free_old_xmit_skbs(vi); > > - /* If we has a buffer left over from last time, send it now. */ > - if (unlikely(vi->last_xmit_skb) && > - xmit_skb(vi, vi->last_xmit_skb) != 0) > - goto stop_queue; > + /* Put new one in send queue and do transmit */ > + __skb_queue_head(&vi->send, skb); > + if (likely(xmit_skb(vi, skb) == 0)) { > + vi->svq->vq_ops->kick(vi->svq); > + return NETDEV_TX_OK; > + } Hmm, is it okay to leave the skb on the send queue if we return NETDEV_TX_BUSY? Cheers, Mark. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
