netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Prevent netpoll hanging when link is down

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@davemloft.net>
References: <20041006232544.53615761@jack.colino.net> <20041006214322.GG31237@waste.org> <20041007075319.6b31430d@jack.colino.net> <20041006234912.66bfbdcc.davem@davemloft.net> <20041007160532.60c3f26b@pirandello> <20041007112846.5c85b2d9.davem@davemloft.net>
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



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