Re: [PATCH net-next V2 3/3] tun: rx batching

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 2017年01月03日 21:33, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:09:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
+static int tun_rx_batched(struct tun_file *tfile, struct sk_buff *skb,
+			  int more)
+{
+	struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue;
+	struct sk_buff_head process_queue;
+	int qlen;
+	bool rcv = false;
+
+	spin_lock(&queue->lock);
Should this be spin_lock_bh()?  Below and in tun_get_user() there are
explicit local_bh_disable() calls so I guess BHs can interrupt us here
and this would deadlock.

sk_write_queue were accessed only in this function which runs under process context, so no need for spin_lock_bh() here.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux