netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] r8169: Support for byte queue limits

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 2 Dec 2011 22:54:50 +0100
From:	Igor Maravić <igorm@....rs>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] r8169: Support for byte queue limits

>
> Reread what I said : "BQL must be lightweight"
>
> Not : "No lock should be used"
>
> OK ?
>

I'm out of ideas.

Do you think, if I remove netdev_reset_queue(tp->dev); from
rtl8169_init_ring_indexes,
and spin_locks, of course, that would be a good solution.

As far as I could see in marvell/sky2.c,  sfc/tx.c and intel/e1000e/netdev.c
netdev_completed is called with out any lock.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
BR
Igor
--
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