On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:20 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:42:01 -0700
>
>> @@ -4599,7 +4599,9 @@ static void bnxt_tx_enable(struct bnxt *bp)
>> for (i = 0; i < bp->tx_nr_rings; i++) {
>> txr = &bp->tx_ring[i];
>> txq = netdev_get_tx_queue(bp->dev, i);
>> + __netif_tx_lock(txq, smp_processor_id());
>> txr->dev_state = 0;
>> + __netif_tx_unlock(txq);
>
> You're going to have to explain how this could possibly cause a
> problem, because I'm pretty sure it can't.
>
> Either the reader sees 0, or non-zero, in this value.
>
> And adding locking around this assignment does not change that at all.
Florian, I agree with David. The lock is not needed. The lock in
bnxt_tx_disable() is also unnecessary and should be removed. Thanks.
