On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:49:23 +0200 Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 September 2006 15:25, Larry Finger wrote: > > Michael Buesch wrote: > > > On Wednesday 13 September 2006 04:25, Larry Finger wrote: > > >> Michael, > > >> > > >> I still have not gotten a network guru to answer any questions about > > >> synchronize_net, but I have been testing the patch below: > > > > > > I'd say this is racy. > > > Did you test this on SMP? > > > > No - I don't have the hardware. > > > > > >> Index: wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_main.c > > >> =================================================================== > > >> --- wireless-2.6.orig/drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_main.c > > >> +++ wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_main.c > > >> @@ -3169,8 +3169,8 @@ static void bcm43xx_periodic_work_handle > > >> * be preemtible. > > >> */ > > >> mutex_lock(&bcm->mutex); > > >> - netif_stop_queue(bcm->net_dev); > > >> synchronize_net(); > > > > > > A TX handler starts on another CPU. > > > > > >> + netif_stop_queue(bcm->net_dev); > > > > > > It's still running... boom. > > > > > > > I see your point, but the current way breaks a UP system! What to do? > > Simple. Reading the code of synchronize_net() and > netif_stop_queue() and thinking about why it breaks, instead > of committing bugfixes that only substitute one bug by another. ;) > I'll take a look, too. Why are you doing the synchronize_net()? it is meant for RCU. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
