From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 07:01:50 +0000
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 06:48:10AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 05:29:32AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> ...
> > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> > > index 63d6bcd..69320a5 100644
> > > --- a/net/core/dev.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> > > @@ -4200,6 +4200,7 @@ static void netdev_init_queues(struct net_device *dev)
> > > {
> > > netdev_init_one_queue(dev, &dev->rx_queue, NULL);
> > > netdev_for_each_tx_queue(dev, netdev_init_one_queue, NULL);
> > > + spin_lock_init(&dev->tx_global_lock);
> >
> > This will probably need some lockdep annotations similar to
> > _xmit_lock.
>
> ...BTW, we probably could also consider some optimization here: the
> xmit_lock of the first queue could be treated as special, and only
> the owner could do such a freezing. This would save changes of
> functionality to non mq devices. On the other hand, it would need
> remembering about this special treatment (so, eg. a separate lockdep
> initialization than all the others).
I think special casing the zero's queue's lock is a bad idea.
Having a real top-level synchronizer is a powerful tool and
we could use it for other things.
--
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
