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  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:	Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:14:41 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: napi fix

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:50:13AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jarek Poplawski <>
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:49:53 +0100
> > As a matter of fact, since it's "unlikely()" in net_rx_action() anyway,
> > I wonder what is the main reason or gain of leaving such a tricky
> > exception, instead of letting drivers to always decide which is the
> > best moment for napi_complete()? (Or maybe even, in such a case, they
> > should call some function with this list_move_tail() if it's so
> > useful?)
> It is the only sane way to synchronize the list manipulations.
> There has to be a way for ->poll() to tell net_rx_action() two things:
> 1) How much work was completed, so we can adjust 'budget'
> 2) Was the NAPI quota exhausted?  So that we know that
>    net_rx_action() still "owns" the polling context and
>    thus can do the list manipulation safely.
> And these both need to be encoded into one single return value, thus
> the adopted convention that "work == weight" means that the device has
> not done a NAPI complete.

Thanks! So, I've to rethink this all...

Jarek P.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists