On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 17:28 +0200, Eliezer Tamir wrote: > On 04/03/2013 16:52, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 10:43 +0200, Eliezer Tamir wrote: > > > >> One could for example increment the generation id every time the RTNL is > >> taken. or is this too much? > > > > RTNL is taken for a lot of operations, it would be better to have a > > finer grained increment. > > If is taken rarely enough it will still be worth it. >
Yes, but eventually it makes attempts to get rid of RTNL a nightmare. When adding new network features, just use the right semantic from the beginning. > Otherwise it may be hard to know what operations need to invalidate the > napi reference. It can very well be HW dependent, and then you end up > adding a function for drivers to call to do the invalidation. > > Or we can decide that we only care about catastrophic events and only > worry about a napi completely going away and not worry about > configuration changes.(Polling the wrong queue will not kill you, it's > just a waste of perfectly good CPU cycles.) As long as the incoming packets are able to update the information, who cares if one packet missed the poll ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
