On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 09:16:24PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 20:36 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 07:04:36PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote: > > ... > > > I'm sure as hell, I miss sth. but can't it be done by this pseudo-code: > > > > ...And I really doubt it can't be done like this. > > Umm, of course it cannot, because then we'd have to take the mutex in > the TX path, which we cannot. We cannot have another lock in the TX > path, what's so hard to understand about? We need to be able to lock all > queues to lock out multiple tx paths at once in some (really) slow paths > but not have any extra lock overhead for the tx path, especially not a > single lock. But this mutex doesn't have to be mutex. And it's not for the tx path, only for "service" just like netif_tx_lock(). The fast path needs only queue->tx_lock. Jarek P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
