On Wednesday 30 September 2009 13:56:12 Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > 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. What if we just get the fix merged and discuss later whether it's worth to optimize a picosecond or not?? My patch fixes the _bug_. You can merge a more "efficient" fix later that saves one or two CPU cycles. -- 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
