Re: [net-next PATCH 1/2] igbvf: add new driver to support 82576 virtual functions

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Alexander Duyck
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 5:40 pm

Andrew Morton wrote:

I suppose that would work, but I still would prefer to keep this bit of 
code as it is.  My main motivation is just to use what was already 
proven, and the fact is the e1000, e1000e, igb, and several other 
drivers all use this same approach and it works.

I don't think we need the extra overhead of the mutex lock since most of 
the calls that end up setting the __IGBVF_RESETTING bit will already be 
wrapped within rtnl_lock/unlock calls.  As far as I can tell it looks 
like the only two threads that would ever be competing for the lock 
would be the igbvf_reinit_locked and whatever ethtool or ifconfig 
requests that decide to make changes to the configuration of the netdevice.

Thanks,

Alex
--
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
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [net-next PATCH 1/2] igbvf: add new driver to support ..., Alexander Duyck, (Wed Mar 18, 5:40 pm)