[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150119.215220.720365670558757349.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:52:20 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: hayeswang@...ltek.com
Cc: sfeldma@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, nic_swsd@...ltek.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] r8152: adjust rx_bottom
From: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 02:48:50 +0000
>> >> + urb->actual_length = 0;
>> >> + list_add_tail(&agg->list, next);
>> >
>> > Do you need a spin_lock_irqsave(&tp->rx_lock, flags) around this?
>>
>> Indeed, and rtl_start_rx() seems to also access agg->list without
>> proper locking.
>
> It is unnecessary because I deal with them in a local list_head. My steps are
> 1. Move the whole list from tp->rx_done to local rx_queue. (with spin lock)
> 2. dequeue/enqueue the lists in rx_queue.
> 3. Move the lists in rx_queue to tp->rx_done if it is necessary. (spin lock)
> For step 2, it wouldn't have race, because the list_head is local and no other
> function would change it. Therefore, I don't think it needs the spin lock.
>
> The rtl_start_rx() also uses the similar way.
agg->list is not local, you have to use a spinlock to protect
modifications to it, some other sites which modify agg->list do take
the lock properly.
You cannot modify a list like agg->list without proper locking.
--
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