At 2017-08-08 21:58:27, "Guillaume Nault" <g.nault@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:16:33PM +0800, Gao Feng wrote:
>> At 2017-08-08 17:43:24, "Guillaume Nault" <g.nault@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >--- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
>> >+++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
>> >@@ -1915,21 +1915,23 @@ static void __ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch)
>> > spin_unlock(&pch->downl);
>> > /* see if there is anything from the attached unit to be sent */
>> > if (skb_queue_empty(&pch->file.xq)) {
>> >- read_lock(&pch->upl);
>> > ppp = pch->ppp;
>> > if (ppp)
>> >- ppp_xmit_process(ppp);
>> >- read_unlock(&pch->upl);
>> >+ __ppp_xmit_process(ppp);
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > static void ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch)
>> > {
>> >- local_bh_disable();
>> >-
>> >- __ppp_channel_push(pch);
>> >-
>> >- local_bh_enable();
>> >+ read_lock_bh(&pch->upl);
>> >+ if (pch->ppp) {
>> >+ (*this_cpu_ptr(pch->ppp->xmit_recursion))++;
>> >+ __ppp_channel_push(pch);
>> >+ (*this_cpu_ptr(pch->ppp->xmit_recursion))--;
>> >+ } else {
>> >+ __ppp_channel_push(pch);
>> >+ }
>> >+ read_unlock_bh(&pch->upl);
>>
>> If invoked read_lock_bh in ppp_channel_push, it would be unnecessary to invoke read_lock(&pch->upl)
>> in the __ppp_channel_push.
>>
>But this patch does remove read_lock(&pch->upl) from
>__ppp_channel_push(). Or have I misunderstood your point?
Sorry, it's my fault.
I forgot your former changes when think about the updates in ppp_channel_push
Best Regards
Feng
?韬{.n?壏煯壄?%娝?檩?w?{.n?壏{炳歩?韰骅w* jg?秹殠娸?G珴?⒏ ⒎:+v墾妛鑚豰稛?? 畐娻＂穐殢鉂?嗁?
