netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] can: Add Nuvoton NCT6694 CANFD support

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: <9a3f1242-794e-41f1-80a5-bc6d18ff6641@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 00:00:43 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, Ming Yu <a0282524688@...il.com>
Cc: tmyu0@...oton.com, lee@...nel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
 brgl@...ev.pl, andi.shyti@...nel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, wim@...ux-watchdog.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
 jdelvare@...e.com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] can: Add Nuvoton NCT6694 CANFD support

On 07/02/2025 at 21:15, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 07.02.2025 15:44:59, Ming Yu wrote:

(...)

>> +static netdev_tx_t nct6694_can_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> +					  struct net_device *ndev)
>> +{
>> +	struct nct6694_can_priv *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
>> +
>> +	if (can_dev_dropped_skb(ndev, skb))
>> +		return NETDEV_TX_OK;
>> +
>> +	netif_stop_queue(ndev);
>> +	can_put_echo_skb(skb, ndev, 0, 0);
>> +	queue_work(priv->wq, &priv->tx_work);

What is the reason to use a work queue here? xmit() is not a hard IRQ.
Also, the other USB CAN devices just directly send the USB message in
their xmit() without the need to rely on such worker.

Sorry if this was discussed in the past, I can not remember if this
question has already been raised.

>> +	return NETDEV_TX_OK;
>> +}

(...)

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol