On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 09:36:15PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 21:34 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> 
> > > Umm, of course it cannot, because then we'd have to take the mutex in
> > > the TX path, which we cannot. We cannot have another lock in the TX
> > > path, what's so hard to understand about? We need to be able to lock all
> > > queues to lock out multiple tx paths at once in some (really) slow paths
> > > but not have any extra lock overhead for the tx path, especially not a
> > > single lock.
> > 
> > But this mutex doesn't have to be mutex. And it's not for the tx path,
> > only for "service" just like netif_tx_lock(). The fast path needs only
> > queue->tx_lock.
> 
> No, we need to be able to lock out multiple TX paths at once.

IMHO, it can do the same. We could e.g. insert a locked spinlock into
this noop_tx_handler(), to give everyone some waiting.

Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html