[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1tzvt3pih.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:08:22 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Dmitry Mishin <dim@...nvz.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Add etun driver
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com> writes:
> > +/*
> > + * The higher levels take care of making this non-reentrant (it's
> > + * called with bh's disabled).
> > + */
> > +static int etun_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *tx_dev)
>
> You have this comment, but then...
>
> > + dev->features = NETIF_F_FRAGLIST
> > + | NETIF_F_HIGHDMA
> > + | NETIF_F_LLTX;
>
> you set LLTX, which means that the upper layers _don't_ make sure that
> your xmit routine is not reentrant.
>
> It looks like the impact of multiple simultaneous xmit calls is just
> the possibility of screwing up the statistics, but still I think you
> want to drop the LLTX feature (since you have no lock of your own to
> try and take).
Yup. That is an inconsistency and probably a bug. I have to think
through what makes most sense in this case. Though the cheap answer
is clearly to remove NETIF_F_LLTX.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists