Re: [PATCH] Compilation fixes for 2.1.127
Andi Kleen (ak@muc.de)
Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:38:38 +0100
On Wed, Nov 11, 1998 at 08:27:45PM +0100, Henner Eisen wrote:
> >>>>> "Andi" == Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> writes:
>
> Andi> No. The proper way to communicate such things to higher
> Andi> layers is over the destination entry (e.g. that is how path
> Andi> mtu discovery is handled). The higher layers pick the
> Andi> condition up as soon as they access the dst_entry again -
> Andi> usually with the next packet which is the first time such a
> Andi> link failure is interesting anyways.
>
> Will the dst entry also affect protocols that use dev_queue_xmit()
> method? And is the latter obsolete and should be replaced with the
> destination output method as done in ipv[46]?
The second. Of course it is not required to port all protocols to the
dst_entry abstraction, but if it is done it is a useful framework to
share common information between sockets pointing to the same destination
and to organize the protocol stack.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/