[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1216115349.3535.20.camel@johannes.berg>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:49:09 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TXQ real_num_tx_queues comments/questions
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 02:39 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:37:01 +0200
>
> > From mac80211's POV it's just that select_queue must have known
> > about the removed queue when the requeue is done. And we can defer
> > the requeue to a workqueue.
>
> Ok.
>
> So you're proposing the requeue be deferred to a workqueue
> and what else? RCU protection around real_num_tx_queues
> access?
Yes, I think we can fix it by deferring the requeue to a workqueue,
using synchronize_net() and putting RCU protection against the
select_queue call.
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists