[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200807312238.20264.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:38:19 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: jarkao2@...il.com, johannes@...solutions.net, netdev@...eo.de,
peterz@...radead.org, Larry.Finger@...inger.net, kaber@...sh.net,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330 __netif_schedule+0x2c/0x98()
On Thursday 31 July 2008 22:29, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:37:57 +0200
>
> > Looks like enough to me. (Probably it could even share space with
> > the state.)
>
> So I made some progress on this, three things:
>
> 1) I remember why I choose a to use a bit in my design, it's so that
> it does not increase the costs of the checks in the fast paths.
> test_bit(X) && test_bit(Y) can be combined into a single test by
> the compiler.
Except for the braindead volatile that gets stuck on the bitops pointer.
Last time I complained about this, a lot of noise was made and I think
Linus wanted it to stay around so we could pass volatile pointers to
bitops & co without warnings. I say we should just remove the volatile
and kill any callers that might warn...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists