At 2017-08-08 21:58:27, "Guillaume Nault" <g.na...@alphalink.fr> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:16:33PM +0800, Gao Feng wrote:
>> At 2017-08-08 17:43:24, "Guillaume Nault" <g.na...@alphalink.fr> wrote:
>> >--- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
>> >+++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
>> >@@ -1915,21 +1915,23 @@ static void __ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch)
>> >    spin_unlock(&pch->downl);
>> >    /* see if there is anything from the attached unit to be sent */
>> >    if (skb_queue_empty(&pch->file.xq)) {
>> >-           read_lock(&pch->upl);
>> >            ppp = pch->ppp;
>> >            if (ppp)
>> >-                   ppp_xmit_process(ppp);
>> >-           read_unlock(&pch->upl);
>> >+                   __ppp_xmit_process(ppp);
>> >    }
>> > }
>> > 
>> > static void ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch)
>> > {
>> >-   local_bh_disable();
>> >-
>> >-   __ppp_channel_push(pch);
>> >-
>> >-   local_bh_enable();
>> >+   read_lock_bh(&pch->upl);
>> >+   if (pch->ppp) {
>> >+           (*this_cpu_ptr(pch->ppp->xmit_recursion))++;
>> >+           __ppp_channel_push(pch);
>> >+           (*this_cpu_ptr(pch->ppp->xmit_recursion))--;
>> >+   } else {
>> >+           __ppp_channel_push(pch);
>> >+   }
>> >+   read_unlock_bh(&pch->upl);
>> 
>> If invoked read_lock_bh in ppp_channel_push, it would be unnecessary to 
>> invoke read_lock(&pch->upl)
>> in the __ppp_channel_push.
>> 
>But this patch does remove read_lock(&pch->upl) from
>__ppp_channel_push(). Or have I misunderstood your point?

Sorry, it's my fault.
I forgot your former changes when think about the updates in ppp_channel_push

Best Regards
Feng

Reply via email to