On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:19:57 -0800 (PST) David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:43:58 +0100 > > > On Friday 13 November 2009, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >> Also, macvlan should really being calling netif_receive_skb() > >> not going through another queue/softirq cycle. > > > > I've added a patch for this in my experimental queue now. > > When I last tried this, I saw a kernel stack overflow > > but it seems fine now. > > I think it is unwise for any virtual device layer to use netif_receive_skb(). > Just like tunnels they should always use netif_rx(). > > Otherwise stack overflow is a very real concern. Maybe we should figure out a way for protocols to return new skb in netif_receive_skb to avoid extra softirq, but avoid stack overflow? -- _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
