On Saturday 12 September 2009 18:41:12 Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> >> As there are several users in the kernel do exact this test and call the
> >> appropriate netif_rx() function, i would suggest to create a static inline
> >> function:
> >>
> >> static inline int netif_rx_ti(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >> {
> >> if (in_interrupt())
> >> return netif_rx(skb);
> >> return netif_rx_ni(skb);
> >> }
> >>
> >> ('ti' for test in_interrupt())
> >>
> >> in include/linux/netdevice.h
> >>
> >> What do you think about that?
> >
> > Yeah, I'm fine with that.
> >
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> i cooked a patch that introduces netif_rx_ti() and fixes up the problems in
> mac80211 and the CAN subsystem.
>
> Currently i'm pondering whether netif_rx_ti() is needed in all cases or if
> there are code sections that'll never be executed from irq-context.
>
> In theses cases netif_rx_ni() should be prefered to netif_rx_ti() to prevent
> the obsolete check ...
>
> Is there any of your changes that should better use netif_rx_ni() ?
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
Well, I'd say this check does not cost much at all.
If I were the net maintainer, I'd get rid of netif_rx_ni() _and_ netif_rx_ti() and
do the check internally in netif_rx().
But as I don't have to decide that, I just want the mac80211 issue fixed.
--
Greetings, Michael.
--
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
