[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170103133303.GC14707@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:33:03 +0000
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: mst@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 3/3] tun: rx batching
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:09:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> +static int tun_rx_batched(struct tun_file *tfile, struct sk_buff *skb,
> + int more)
> +{
> + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue;
> + struct sk_buff_head process_queue;
> + int qlen;
> + bool rcv = false;
> +
> + spin_lock(&queue->lock);
Should this be spin_lock_bh()? Below and in tun_get_user() there are
explicit local_bh_disable() calls so I guess BHs can interrupt us here
and this would deadlock.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists