On 09/18/2012 09:01 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

On 09/18/2012 08:50 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:

quoted

On 09/18/2012 03:42 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

quoted

On 09/18/2012 03:39 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:

quoted

On 09/18/2012 03:00 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

quoted

On 09/18/2012 02:49 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
[...]

quoted

quoted

We have several customers who asked how to abort pending TX messages,
too. Which involves:
a) clear the TX-queue in Linux
b) clear queue in hardware
c) abort currently transmitting CAN frame

I think c) would be a usecase of its own, too.

I think you need c) for b), at least for some controllers. These

Yes, if it's a hardware limitation so be it. But if we design an
interface it should support "clear everything" (a+b+c), but also just
only c.

Yes, that you be nice. The only portable "clear everything" (a+b+c) I
see is "ifconfig down -> up". This also answers you other related mail.

What do people really want/need and why? This is still not clear to me.
More input would be nice.

Heinz-Jürgen uses abort current TX Message on SJA1000, can you give us
more insight? I've talked to customers, e.g. they want to abort the
current frame if it takes "too long" to send it, because the frames CAN
id priority is too low.

What we could implement rather easily is a "tx-abort-last" or
"tx-abort-all" netlink command. As this command does not make sense when
more than one message is pending I'm in favor of "tx-abort-last".

I like to have both commands.

But then "tx-abort-all" should also clear the tx socket queue. Also be
aware that more than one socket may send messages. Let's wait for more
use-cases.

Wolfgang.