> -----Original Message----- > From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 11:44 AM > To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx>; kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH resend 1/3] rtlwifi: rtl8821ae: don't call kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave() > > > On 2022/12/7 11:31, Ping-Ke Shih wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 9:13 PM > >> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx>; kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx > >> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: [PATCH resend 1/3] rtlwifi: rtl8821ae: don't call kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave() > >> > >> It is not allowed to call kfree_skb() from hardware interrupt > >> context or with interrupts being disabled. So add all skb to > >> a free list, then free them after spin_unlock_irqrestore() at > >> once. > > The patch doesn't change logic, so it should work. But, I would like to know > > if there is a comment about this in kernel code. Could you point it out? > You can see comment of dev_kfree_skb_irq() in include/linux/netdevice.h > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/netdevice.h?h=v6 > .1-rc8 > It seems like we can replace kfree_skb() by dev_kfree_skb_irq(), right? But your method is more efficient. Is that your point? Ping-Ke
