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  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]
Date:	Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:17:25 -0500
From:	olof@...om.net (Olof Johansson)
To:	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH v2] [1/5] pasemi_mac: minor bugfixes

On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:20:17AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> >+	if (was_full)
> >+		netif_wake_queue(mac->netdev);
> >+
> 
> Isn't this was_full check redundant?  Using standard test-and-clear 
> atomic logic, netif_wake_queue() will not issue spurious wakeups.  Take 
> a look at its implementation in include/linux/netdevice.h.

It's not needed to avoid spurious wakeups, but test_and_clear_bit()
results in an atomic op even if the bit is already clear. I.e. it's a
bit heavy-handed to do if you can already know that it isn't set.

Either way it's no big deal, I'll take out the test for now. It can always
be added back in if it starts to climb on profiles when benchmarking.


-Olof
-
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