Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:02:10 +0200 | From | Henner Eisen <> | Subject | Re: Q: sock output serialization |
| |
>>>>> "Andi" == Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> writes:
Andi> It would just be racy. You test, get a not drop and then Andi> another different interrupt would deliver another packet Andi> before you can and fill the queue. Jamal's extended Andi> netif_rx probably makes more sense, because it can be Andi> atomic.
I thought if it was executed from the same single interrupt handler (and lapb also processed from that same interrupt handler) while local irq are disables, this could not happen. But for smart controllers, this does not hold, they would need to interrupt the cpu first to query the state, and than again before delivering the packet. And for dumb cards, doing the lapb processing inside irq handler is not nice, anyway. Moving lapb processing above netif_rx() would resolve this and all other problems.
Henner
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |