| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent netpoll hanging when link is down |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:43:00 +0200 |
| Cc: | Colin Leroy <colin@xxxxxxxxxx>, mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041007112846.5c85b2d9.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20041006232544.53615761@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041006214322.GG31237@xxxxxxxxx> <20041007075319.6b31430d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041006234912.66bfbdcc.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041007160532.60c3f26b@pirandello> <20041007112846.5c85b2d9.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:28:46AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:05:32 +0200 > Colin Leroy <colin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > First, my newbie question: is it possible to deadlock a spinlock on a > > Uniprocessor kernel ? For example, there's something I find suspect in > > netpoll/sungem interaction: > > > > Oh yes, it appears that netpoll doesn't support NETIF_F_LLTX locking, > crap :( > > When a device has NETIF_F_LLTX set, it means that the driver's > dev->hard_start_xmit() routine is what takes the xmit_lock, not > the caller one level up. It takes an own lock, not xmit_lock. It's fine to ignore it completely. In the worst case the poll will not be retried, but netpoll has no way to do that anyways I think. -Andi |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent netpoll hanging when link is down, Matt Mackall |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch 2.6.9-rc2] 3c59x: do not mask reset of aism logic at rmmod, John W. Linville |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent netpoll hanging when link is down, Colin Leroy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent netpoll hanging when link is down, Colin Leroy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |