On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 12:31 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> Can we please fix this in another way? There is no need to hold the
> spin lock during the callback into the networking stack. Instead,
> how about the following diff, which also fixes the other call site...
I agree that this is a better way to fix it - I think that this was the
purpose of the patch that got halfway mixed in.
@@ -874,14 +874,15 @@ static void decode_rxts(struct dp83640_private
> *dp83640,
> shhwtstamps = skb_hwtstamps(skb);
> memset(shhwtstamps, 0,
> sizeof(*shhwtstamps));
> shhwtstamps->hwtstamp = ns_to_ktime(rxts-
> >ns);
> - netif_rx_ni(skb);
> list_add(&rxts->list, &dp83640->rxpool);
> break;
> }
> }
> spin_unlock(&dp83640->rx_queue.lock);
>
> - if (!shhwtstamps)
> + if (shhwtstamps)
> + netif_rx_ni(skb);
> + else
> list_add_tail(&rxts->list, &dp83640->rxts);
> out:
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dp83640->rx_lock, flags);
Here we still hold rx_lock while during the callback, wouldn't it be
beneficial to release that first?
Stefan
��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�ޗ�����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
