On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 04:47:27PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:23:28 +0300 > > > You used __netif_subqueue_stopped but that seems to use > > a slightly more expensive test_bit internally. > > More expensive in what sense? It should be roughly the same > as "x & y" sans the volatile. I really just meant volatile - this might prevent some compiler optimizations. I have't actually checked the produced binary so I don't know for sure. > Anyways I'm ambivalent and I want to see this bug fixes, so I'll > apply your patch. > > Thanks! _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
