[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:12:19 +0100
From: Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@...lesie.net>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chas Williams - CONTRACTOR <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/7] pppoatm: fix missing wakeup in pppoatm_send()
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 03:26:41PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 14:50 +0100, Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> > Looks and works ok after:
> > + atmvcc->unlock_cb = pppoatm_unlock_cb;
>
> Heh, yeah. That would probably help :)
>
> Not sure if it's really necessary to optimise out the unneeded wakeups ???
> I don't think that code path gets exercised very hard for normal passing
> of packets. Maybe only LCP echo and responses, on a live connection?
>
> But yeah, the locking *is* that simple, isn't it ??? and not the painful
> stuff I had to do for the BLOCKED flag, which is why I deferred that
> question to concentrate on the basic concept of using ->release_cb().
>
> So it's silly *not* to do the 'need_wakeup'. But could it also live in
> the 'blocked' word rather than expanding the structure further? Or just
> *use* the BLOCKED bit, for that matter?
>
It would require using atomic ops because also pppoatm_pop() can modify this
word. I think it's better to add additional word instead of using
atomic ops.
Krzysiek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists