linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-zigbee-devel] [PATCH 1/6] mac802154: Immediately retry sending failed packets

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20130402.223036.1483788180825619960.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	alan@...nal11.us
Cc:	werner@...esberger.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-zigbee-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-zigbee-devel] [PATCH 1/6] mac802154: Immediately retry
 sending failed packets

From: Alan Ott <alan@...nal11.us>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:25:28 -0400

> The workqueue in mac802154 is only needed because the current mac802154
> xmit() function is designed to be blocking and synchronous.
> 
> Prior to my patch (#3/6), that very same workqueue would actually queue
> up packets (without bound). That's what my patch fixes.
> 
> The workqueue in mac802154 also serializes the access to the device for
> other functions like setting the channel, ensuring that in the driver
> code, one doesn't have to mutex everything. I'm not sure if that's the
> "right" way to do it, but that's the way it was when I got here.

This is entirely duplicating existing facilities.

Your desire to allow blockability during xmit() on the basis of mutual
exclusion is not well founded.
--
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/