[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200916.171926.383551951466329210.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 17:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: olteanv@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, yangbo.lu@....com,
xiaoliang.yang_1@....com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
claudiu.manoil@....com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
kuba@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/7] net: mscc: ocelot: add locking for the port TX
timestamp ID
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:22:24 +0300
> This is a problem because, at least theoretically, another timestampable
> skb might use the same ocelot_port->ts_id before that is incremented. So
> the logic of using and incrementing the timestamp id should be atomic
> per port.
Have you actually observed this race in practice?
All transmit calls are serialized by the netdev transmit spinlock.
Let's not add locking if it is not actually necessary.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists