On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 06:25:30AM +0900, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 23:19 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: ... > > --- a/net/core/dev.c > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > > @@ -2728,7 +2728,7 @@ void __napi_schedule(struct napi_struct *n) > > > > local_irq_save(flags); > > list_add_tail(&n->poll_list, &__get_cpu_var(softnet_data).poll_list); > > - __raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ); > > + raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ); > > This still doesn't make any sense. > > There may or may not be a lot of code that assumes that everything else > is run with other tasklets disabled, and that it cannot be interrupted > by a tasklet and thus create a race. > > Can you prove that is not the case, across the entire networking layer? I'm not sure I can understand your question. This patch is mainly to avoid using netif_rx()/netif_rx_ni() pair as a test of proper process context handling; IMHO there're better tools for this (lockdep, WARN_ON's). Jarek P. -- 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
