[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <519D2C02.7080500@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:35:14 -0400
From: annie li <annie.li@...cle.com>
To: Wei Liu <liuw@...w.name>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>, jbeulich@...e.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next V3 2/3] xen-netfront: split event
channels support for Xen frontend driver
On 2013-5-22 16:20, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:32 PM, annie li <annie.li@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Originally, netfront protects access to rx shared-ring with tx_lock, you
>> remove this protection here. It is better to protect the ring access by a
>> sperate rx_lock then.
>>
> TX ring and RX ring are separate rings. I don't think that comment / code
> makes sense any more. My stress test confirms that.
Yes, they are separate rings. Actually I am not sure why
RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_RESPONSES(&np->rx) is protected by any tx_lock
originally. But for xennet_rx_interrupt, it is better to use rx_lock to
protect RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_RESPONSES(&np->rx).
Thanks
Annie
>
>
> Wei.
>
>> Thanks
>> Annie
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org
>> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> --
> 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
--
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