On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:44:29AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 06:33:36PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:31:27AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure of your point... This patch is only to fix my yesterday's
> > > doubt #1, and it doesn't introduce, I hope, any new live-lock
> > > vulnerabity. So, if you mean doubt #2, there is needed a separate
> > > patch, but I'm not sure there is a need to add a flag. I've thougt
> > > about a counter in a Qdisc for consecutive requeues with
> > > netif_schedule, so we could break after some limit. Of course, your
> > > idea could be simpler and better, but if I could only see some code...
> > 
> > What I mean is the extremely unlikely scenario of net_tx_action
> > always failing on trylock because dev_deactivate has grabbed the
> > lock to check whether net_tx_action has completed.
> 
> Of course! I got it myself after responding and re-reading, sorry. So,
> this is yet another doubt, but I still wonder why you don't attach
> any code... (I'm currently trying to re-think this.)

On the other hand... such a flag would be probably for one thing only.
And if we would have a "netif_scheduled_without_xmitting" counter this
could probably make 2 in 1?

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