Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:32:33 +0200
The idea is to drop all !NFS packets (or even more specific only
keep those NFS packets that belong to the critical mount), and
everybody doing critical IO over layered networks like IPSec or
other tunnel constructs asks for trouble - Just DON'T do that.
People are doing I/O over IP exactly for it's ubiquity and
flexibility. It seems a major limitation of the design if you cancel
out major components of this flexibility.
I really can't take this work seriously when I see things like this
being said.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- References:
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Evgeniy Polyakov
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- From: Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] arch/i386/kernel/cpu/transmeta.c, kernel 2.6.17.8
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
- Index(es):