On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 21:34 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > 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. No, we need to be able to lock out multiple TX paths at once. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
