On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 09:36:15PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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. IMHO, it can do the same. We could e.g. insert a locked spinlock into this noop_tx_handler(), to give everyone some waiting. 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
