[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0835B3720019904CB8F7AA43166CEEB2EE6E9F@RTITMBSV03.realtek.com.tw>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 03:24:52 +0000
From: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "sfeldma@...il.com" <sfeldma@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
nic_swsd <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 1/7] r8152: adjust rx_bottom
David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:52 AM
[...]
> agg->list is not local, you have to use a spinlock to protect
> modifications to it, some other sites which modify agg->list do take
> the lock properly.
>
> You cannot modify a list like agg->list without proper locking.
Excuse me. I don't understand.
Before step1
tp_rx_done->listA->listB->listC->listD->...
rx_queue->
Because the other function would chage tp->rx_done,
I need move the lists with spin lock.
After step1
tp_rx_done->
rx_queue->listA->listB->listC->listD->...
Now I dequeue one of the lists from the list_head and
deal with it.
tp_rx_done->
rx_queue->listA->listC->listD->...
listB
Then, if I want to put it back to rx_queue, I have to
use spin lock. Why? No other function would chage
rx_queue and the items in it.
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