From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH] econet: have failed ec_queue_packet() call return NET_RX_BAD Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:50:26 +0930 Message-ID: <20090620205026.05219c33.lk-netdev@lk-netdev.nosense.org> References: <20090620200438.b5443520.lk-netdev@lk-netdev.nosense.org> <20090620105325.GC31266@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net To: Florian Westphal Return-path: Received: from smtp4.adam.net.au ([202.136.110.247]:54021 "EHLO smtp4.adam.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751896AbZFTLUb (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:20:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090620105325.GC31266@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Florian, On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:53:25 +0200 Florian Westphal wrote: > Mark Smith wrote: > > econet_rcv() calls ec_queue_packet(). The return from ec_queue_packet() > > is the direct result of a call to sock_queue_rcv_skb(). Error returns > > from ec_queue_packet() and therefore sock_queue_rcv_skb() are due to > > kernel errors, so have econet_rcv() return NET_RX_BAD in this case. > > What about doing this instead? > I think there is value in distinguishing between network/protocol errors and kernel errors. It helps determine where the fault might lie - in the network somewhere, or isolated to the receiving host. In larger organisations there is typically a networks support team and a hosts/sys admin team. Hints such as this that help determine who's problem the fault is to deal with can be a big time saver (being a networking person on one of these sorts of teams, I'm scrathing an itch :-) ) If these econet patches are accepted, I'll send through similar patches for the other protocols in the kernel where necessary. Thanks, Mark.