[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090227154440.M53654@cooldavid.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:51:05 +0800
From: "Guo-Fu Tseng" <cooldavid@...ldavid.org>
To: roel kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: more timeouts that reach -1
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:37:30 +0100, roel kluin wrote
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Guo-Fu Tseng <cooldavid@...ldavid.org> wrote:
> > There should be no difference after this modification.
> > The return value of this function is: "limit > 0 ? limit : 0;"
>
> There is:
> In the last iteration limit is 1 during the test before it is decremented to 0.
>
> rxdesc = rxring->desc;
> rxdesc += i;
>
> If then we break out of the loop by the 'goto out;', we continue with:
>
> out:
> atomic_set(&rxring->next_to_clean, i);
>
> out_inc:
> atomic_inc(&jme->rx_cleaning);
>
> but since limit is already decremented, 0 is returned.
>
> >
> > Guo-Fu Tseng
> >
>
> Roel
I see.
But the correct patch should be following one, right?
===================================================================
--- jme.c (revision 580)
+++ jme.c (working copy)
@@ -958,13 +958,14 @@
goto out_inc;
i = atomic_read(&rxring->next_to_clean);
- while (limit-- > 0) {
+ while (limit > 0) {
rxdesc = rxring->desc;
rxdesc += i;
if ((rxdesc->descwb.flags & RXWBFLAG_OWN) ||
!(rxdesc->descwb.desccnt & RXWBDCNT_WBCPL))
goto out;
+ --limit;
desccnt = rxdesc->descwb.desccnt & RXWBDCNT_DCNT;
Guo-Fu Tseng
--
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