| To: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Problem with dev_kfree_skb_any() in 2.6.0 |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:42:18 -0800 |
| Cc: | benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3FF1B939.1090108@pobox.com> |
| References: | <1072567054.4112.14.camel@gaston> <20031227170755.4990419b.davem@redhat.com> <3FF0FA6A.8000904@pobox.com> <20031229205157.4c631f28.davem@redhat.com> <20031230051519.GA6916@gtf.org> <20031229220122.30078657.davem@redhat.com> <3FF11745.4060705@pobox.com> <20031229221345.31c8c763.davem@redhat.com> <3FF1B939.1090108@pobox.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:43:21 -0500 Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Luckily, I feel there is an easy solution, as shown in the attached > patch. We _already_ queue skbs in dev_kfree_skb_irq(). Therefore, > dev_kfree_skb_any() can simply use precisely that same solution. The > raise-softirq code will immediately proceed to action if we are not in > hard IRQ context, otherwise it will follow the expected path. Ok, this is reasonable and works. Though, is there any particular reason you don't like adding a "|| irqs_disabled()" check to the if statement instead? I prefer that solution better actually. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Fix loopback over bridge port, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Problem with dev_kfree_skb_any() in 2.6.0, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Fix loopback over bridge port, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Problem with dev_kfree_skb_any() in 2.6.0, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |