On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 23:39 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > - __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). And how exactly does that matter to the patch at hand?! I'm saying that it seems to me, as indicated by the API (and without proof otherwise that's how it is) the networking layer needs to have packets handed to it with softirqs disabled. Therefore, this patch is not needed. While it may not be _wrong_, it'll definitely introduce a performance regression. This really should be obvious. You're fixing the warning at the source of the warning, rather than the source of the problem. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
