John W. Linville wrote: > On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 06:41:12PM +0200, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > >> i cooked a patch that introduces netif_rx_ti() and fixes up the problems in >> mac80211 and the CAN subsystem. > > Oliver, > > Are you going to send this patch to Dave? If you want me to carry > it instead, please resend it with a proper changelog including a > Signed-off-by line. For that matter, Dave will most certainly want > that as well... Hello John, as i wrote here http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=125277885910179&w=2 there are currently only three occurrences of checks that use netif_rx() and netif_rx_ni() depending on in_interrupt(). And regarding the suggested fix from Michael, that checked every(!) netif_rx() whether it is in interrupt or not, i was unsure if a netif_tx_ti() would make sense for only three cases?!? If you think it makes sense, i can post a patch for that ... but: Indeed it costs some additional investigation to prove whether netif_rx() or netif_rx_ni() should be used in each case. But IMHO this has to be done before providing a pump-gun function that solves the problem without thinking if we are in irq-context or not. I want to avoid that people are using netif_rx_ti() as some kind of default ... I don't know how expensive in_interrupt() is, but it IMO should be avoided when the context for a code section can be determined in another way. Regards, Oliver -- 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
