[Top] [All Lists]

Re: tun.c patch to fix "smp_processor_id() in preemptible code"

To: Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: tun.c patch to fix "smp_processor_id() in preemptible code"
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:33:08 -0700
Cc: herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx, irda-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:10:58 -0400
Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>   /*
>    * Since receiving is always initiated from a tasklet (in iucv.c),
>    * we must use netif_rx_ni() instead of netif_rx()
>    */
> This implies that the author thought it was a matter of correctness to
> use netif_rx_ni vs. netif_rx.  But it looks like the only difference is
> that the former sacrifices preempt-safety for performance.

You can't really delete netif_rx_ni(), so if there is a preemptability
issue, just add the necessary preemption protection around the softirq

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>