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: <1181308372.4063.126.camel@localhost>
Date:	Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:12:52 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
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 Fri, 2007-08-06 at 22:37 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:

> Hmm I wasn't describing how it works now.  I'm talking about how it
> would work if we removed LLTX and replaced the private tx_lock with
> netif_tx_lock.

I got that - it is what tg3 does for example.
To mimick that behavior in LLTX, a driver needs to use the same lock on
both tx and receive. e1000 holds a different lock on tx path from rx
path. Maybe theres something clever i am missing; but it seems to be a
bug on e1000.
The point i was making is that it was strange i never had problems
despite taking away the lock on the tx side and using the rx side
concurently.

cheers,
jamal

-
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