All,
Similar to this commit:
http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d15e9c4d9a75702b30e00cdf95c71c88e3f3f51e
It's not safe in cp_start_xmit to blindly call spin_lock_irq and then
spin_unlock_irq, since it may very well be the case that cp_start_xmit
(trying again, this time to the correct maintainer)
All,
Similar to this commit:
http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d15e9c4d9a75702b30e00cdf95c71c88e3f3f51e
It's not safe in cp_start_xmit to blindly call spin_lock_irq and then
spin_unlock_irq, s
Chris Lalancette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
> Similar to this commit:
>
> http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d15e9c4d9a75702b30e00cdf95c71c88e3f3f51e
>
> It's not safe in cp_start_xmit to blindly call spin_lock_irq and then
> spin_unlock_irq, sin
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 08:56:35PM +0100, Francois Romieu wrote:
>
> As I understand http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/12/239, something like the
> patch below should had been sent instead. Herbert, ack/nak ?
Sorry, what I said in that thread is in error. Netpoll may
unfortunately call the transmit r
Francois Romieu wrote:
> Chris Lalancette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> [...]
>
>> Similar to this commit:
>>
>>http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d15e9c4d9a75702b30e00cdf95c71c88e3f3f51e
>>
>>It's not safe in cp_start_xmit to blindly call spin_lock_irq a
Chris Lalancette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
> Thanks for the comments. While the patch you sent will help, there are
> still other places that will have problems. For example, in netpoll_send_skb,
> we call local_irq_save(flags), then call dev->hard_start_xmit(), and then call
> local_irq_r
