netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] sunvnet: Packet processing in non-interrupt context.

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20141006193111.GE24721@oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:31:11 -0400
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	raghuram.kothakota@...cle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] sunvnet: Packet processing in non-interrupt
 context.

On (10/06/14 15:25), David Miller wrote:
> 
> > But we still need to hold the vio lock around the ldc_write 
> > (and also around dring write) in vnet_start_xmit, right?
> 
> You might be able to avoid it, you're fully serialized by the TX queue
> lock.

yes, I was just noticing that. The only place where I believe I need
to hold the vio spin-lock is to sync with the dr->cons checks
(the "should I send a start_cons LDC message?" check in vnet_start_xmit()
vs the vnet_ack() updates).

But isn't it better in general to declare NETIF_F_LLTX and have finer lock
granularity in the driver?

--Sowmini

--
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