[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45593A6C899E4D8E9C76A16474CA1D90@realtek.com.tw>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:45:41 +0800
From: hayeswang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To: 'Francois Romieu' <romieu@...zoreil.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 12/14] r8152: replace netif_rxwithnetif_receive_skb
Francois Romieu [mailto:romieu@...zoreil.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:47 PM
> To: hayeswang
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; nic_swsd@...ltek.com;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/14] r8152: replace
> netif_rxwithnetif_receive_skb
>
[...]
> The change in rx_bottom is fine. My point is about read_bulk_callback.
>
> rx_bottom races with read_bulk_callback. rx_bottom is issued in
> tasklet (softirq) context. read_bulk_callback is issued in irq
> context, with irq disabled. read_bulk_callback does not need to
> disable irq itself and could go with spin_lock in place of
> spin_lock_irqsave (rx_bottom can't, of course).
I think I misunderstand your meaning.
I would modify them. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Hayes
--
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