From: Martin Schiller <ms@dev.tdt.de>
To: Xie He <xie.he.0141@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Hendry <andrew.hendry@gmail.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Linux X25 <linux-x25@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/5] net/lapb: support netdev events
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 10:00:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d85a4543eae46bac1de28ec17a2389dd@dev.tdt.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJht_EPc8MF1TjznSjWTPyMbsrw3JVqxST5g=eF0yf_zasUdeA@mail.gmail.com>
On 2020-11-23 09:31, Xie He wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 10:55 PM Martin Schiller <ms@dev.tdt.de> wrote:
>>
>> No, they aren't independent. The carrier can only be up if the device
>> /
>> interface is UP. And as far as I can see a NETDEV_CHANGE event will
>> also
>> only be generated on interfaces that are UP.
>>
>> So you can be sure, that if there is a NETDEV_CHANGE event then the
>> device is UP.
>
> OK. Thanks for your explanation!
>
>> I removed the NETDEV_UP handling because I don't think it makes sense
>> to implicitly try to establish layer2 (LAPB) if there is no carrier.
>
> As I understand, when the device goes up, the carrier can be either
> down or up. Right?
>
> If this is true, when a device goes up and the carrier then goes up
> after that, L2 will automatically connect, but if a device goes up and
> the carrier is already up, L2 will not automatically connect. I think
> it might be better to eliminate this difference in handling. It might
> be better to make it automatically connect in both situations, or in
> neither situations.
AFAIK the carrier can't be up before the device is up. Therefore, there
will be a NETDEV_CHANGE event after the NETDEV_UP event.
This is what I can see in my tests (with the HDLC interface).
Is the behaviour different for e.g. lapbether?
>
> If you want to go with the second way (auto connect in neither
> situations), the next (3rd) patch of this series might be also not
> needed.
>
> I just want to make the behavior of LAPB more consistent. I think we
> should either make LAPB auto-connect in all situations, or make LAPB
> wait for L3's instruction to connect in all situations.
>
>> And with the first X.25 connection request on that interface, it will
>> be established anyway by x25_transmit_link().
>>
>> I've tested it here with an HDLC WAN Adapter and it works as expected.
>>
>> These are also the ideal conditions for the already mentioned "on
>> demand" scenario. The only necessary change would be to call
>> x25_terminate_link() on an interface after clearing the last X.25
>> session.
>>
>> > On NETDEV_GOING_DOWN, we can also check the carrier status first and
>> > if it is down, we don't need to call lapb_disconnect_request.
>>
>> This is not necessary because lapb_disconnect_request() checks the
>> current state. And if the carrier is DOWN then the state should also
>> be
>> LAPB_STATE_0 and so lapb_disconnect_request() does nothing.
>
> Yes, I understand. I just thought adding this check might make the
> code cleaner. But you are right.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-23 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-20 5:40 [PATCH net-next v4 0/5] net/x25: netdev event handling Martin Schiller
2020-11-20 5:40 ` [PATCH net-next v4 1/5] net/x25: handle additional netdev events Martin Schiller
2020-11-20 5:40 ` [PATCH net-next v4 2/5] net/lapb: support " Martin Schiller
2020-11-20 23:11 ` Xie He
2020-11-20 23:50 ` Xie He
2020-11-23 6:55 ` Martin Schiller
2020-11-23 8:31 ` Xie He
2020-11-23 9:00 ` Martin Schiller [this message]
2020-11-23 9:36 ` Xie He
2020-11-23 10:08 ` Xie He
2020-11-23 10:38 ` Martin Schiller
2020-11-23 11:17 ` Xie He
2020-11-23 19:36 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-11-23 22:09 ` Xie He
2020-11-24 5:29 ` Martin Schiller
2020-11-20 5:40 ` [PATCH net-next v4 3/5] net/lapb: fix t1 timer handling for LAPB_STATE_0 Martin Schiller
2020-11-20 5:40 ` [PATCH net-next v4 4/5] net/x25: fix restart request/confirm handling Martin Schiller
2020-11-20 5:40 ` [PATCH net-next v4 5/5] net/x25: remove x25_kill_by_device() Martin Schiller
2020-11-20 22:40 ` [PATCH net-next v4 0/5] net/x25: netdev event handling Xie He
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d85a4543eae46bac1de28ec17a2389dd@dev.tdt.de \
--to=ms@dev.tdt.de \
--cc=andrew.hendry@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-x25@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xie.he.0141@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).