| To: | Dave Peterson <dsp@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: possible bug in net/core/pktgen.c (2.6.10 kernel) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:41:00 -0800 |
| Cc: | Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, robert.olsson@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200501180935.25419.dsp@llnl.gov> |
| References: | <200501141129.21461.dsp@llnl.gov> <16874.25146.335366.990655@robur.slu.se> <200501180935.25419.dsp@llnl.gov> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:35:25 -0800 Dave Peterson <dsp@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday 16 January 2005 04:46 am, Robert Olsson wrote: > > Dave Peterson writes: > > > I found a piece of code that looks problematic in the 2.6.10 kernel. > > > The following code appears starting on line 746 in function inject() > > > of net/core/pktgen.c: > > > schedule(); > > > else > > > do_softirq(); > > > > Thanks! > > So it should be? > > Cool! Looks like a fix to me. I'm still a little bit confused on this one. Since when does do_softirq() need preemption disabled around calls to it? do_softirq() disabled hard IRQs during the duration of it's execution, thus effectively disabling preemption. What is the problematic case again? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] [ATM]: [idt77252] vfree() checking cleanups [ATM]: [idt77252] vfree() checking cleanups, chas williams - CONTRACTOR |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [2.6 patch] unexport xfrm_policy_delete, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: possible bug in net/core/pktgen.c (2.6.10 kernel), Dave Peterson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: possible bug in net/core/pktgen.c (2.6.10 kernel), Dave Peterson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |