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  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, 11 Nov 2010 10:56:13 -0800
From:	Jesse Gross <>
To:	Eric Dumazet <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,
	netdev <>,
	Patrick McHardy <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] vlan: lockless transmit path

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Eric Dumazet <> wrote:
> Le jeudi 11 novembre 2010 à 09:40 -0800, Jesse Gross a écrit :
>> If we're only allocating a single queue then we should also drop
>> vlan_dev_select_queue() and the netdev_ops that call it.  If the
>> underlying device is multiqueue and has its own select_queue function
>> then it can pick a queue number that is larger than what the vlan
>> device has.  The problem will be caught by dev_cap_txqueue() but it's
>> not right and it would also be nice to get rid of half of those
>> netdev_ops.
> Hmm, you refer to old kernels dont you ?
> My patch is for net-next

Well, I was referring to checked-in code.

> The plan is that after last Tom Herbert patches, dev_pick_tx()  wont
> call do_select_queue() on mono queue device.

Before Tom's patch, a warning will be generated if a single queue vlan
device is stacked on top of a multiqueue physical device that
implements ndo_select_queue().  After Tom's patch, we avoid the
warning so vlan_dev_select_queue() is merely dead code.  Either way,
what's the benefit in keeping it?

> This logicaly is a second cleanup patch I believe.

I'm not arguing against your patch, I just think it should go a step further.
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