netdev - Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070608103925.GA23598@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jun 2007 20:39:25 +1000
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Cc:	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com,
	jeff@...zik.org, kaber@...sh.net, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:35:36PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-06 at 17:31 -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> 
> > 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 havent stared at other drivers, but for e1000 seems to me 
> even if you got rid of LLTX that netif_tx_lock is unnecessary.
> Herbert?

It would guard against the poll routine which would acquire this lock
when cleaning the TX ring.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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