Hi, ... > > > > Introduce a percpu counter for the sequence numbers, incrementation of > > this counter is an atomic operation then and we are sure that we don't > > sending the same sequence number when calling this function at the > > same time. > > With this, two threads running on the same interface can send different > packets with the same sequence number back to back. Maybe better make > it atomic instead of percpu instead to avoid that? > Yes you are right, that's not correct. Because per_cpu is a local variable what's the name said _per_ _cpu_. For this kind of very global mib value which needs to be incremented after each transmit a atomic_t should be correct here and that's also what the comment said. Damn, why I thought that a percpu variable should be correct here. - Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
