> and locking, and handling busy returns, and queueing frames.
I have already written: "For LCP,NCP link setup frames: yes, yes and yes.",
but thinking a bit gave up 8)8)
OK, you beated me.
Only, looking at syncppp.c: skb->priority=1 in 2.0 was normal priority,
so that telnet will kill it. And in 2.2 it is filler traffic 8)
And bpqether does not take care about this at all.
Correct setting is TC_PRIO_CONTROL, but this is overrridable too.
To pass through CBQ et al. they also should set skb->protocol to something
reasonable. Well, and driver maintainers have to supply some classifier,
which will detect their strange frames correctly.
> So there ought to be a generic routine for handling it IMHO. But yes
> it shouldnt be going via the protocols
Provided the drivers, which need it, will gather quorum.
Actually, these three "no, no and no" are not so difficult. Especially,
taking into account that the driver knows about its locking
more than anyone. 8)
Alexey
-
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/