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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <OFCFDBAE89.6D3D1B4D-ON652572F4.001DC5F4-652572F4.001E7A65@in.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:02:54 +0530 From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com> To: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com> Cc: auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hadi@...erus.ca, jeff@...zik.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support. > If the QDISC_RUNNING flag guarantees that only one CPU can call > dev->hard_start_xmit(), then why do we need to hold netif_tx_lock > for non-LLTX drivers? I thought the correct use is to get this lock on clean_tx side which can get called on a different cpu on rx (which also cleans up slots for skbs that have finished xmit). Both TX and clean_tx uses the same tx_ring's head/tail ptrs and should be exclusive. But I don't find clean tx using this lock in the code, so I am confused :-) - KK - 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