On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 17:35, Roland Dreier wrote:
> jamal> How about releasing the qlock only when the LLTX transmit
> jamal> lock is grabbed? That should bring it to par with what it
> jamal> was originally.
> This seems a little risky. I can't point to a specific deadlock but
> it doesn't seem right on general principles to unlock in a different
> order than you nested the locks when acquiring them -- if I understand
> correctly, you're suggesting lock(queue_lock), lock(tx_lock),
> unlock(queue_lock), unlock(tx_lock).
There is no deadlock. Thats exactly how things work. Try the patches i