[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:26:41 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@...lesie.net>
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, 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?
--
dwmw2
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (6171 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists