On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 08:23:12AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 05:29:21 -0700 > Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 01:44 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > The netpoll_rx code only becomes active if the netpoll rx_skb_hook is > > > implemented. There is not a single implementation of the netpoll > > > rx_skb_hook in the kernel. > > > > > > There are problems with the netpoll packet receive code. Most > > > speifically every packet that makes it to netpoll_neigh_reply is > > > leaked. > > > > > > Given that the netpoll packet receive code is buggy and has not been used > > > for a decade let's just remove it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/net/Kconfig | 5 - > > > include/linux/netdevice.h | 17 -- > > > include/linux/netpoll.h | 59 ------ > > > net/core/dev.c | 11 +- > > > net/core/netpoll.c | 471 --------------------------------------------- > > > 5 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 562 deletions(-) > > > > I cannot agree more, thanks Eric. > > > > Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I agree but removing it breaks people trying to kgdb over network (kgdboe). > That code never made it upstream, was unreliable and fragile and should be > sent to the retirement home with IMQ. :) But there is still no replacement for IMQ if one wants to do ingress NAT-aware traffic shaping, not even with ifb, I fear? So to be fair there still seems to be a reason why IMQ is still around. But that is a different topic... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html