On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 11:01 -0700, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote:
Hi Peter,
> I agree that the case shouldn't happen, and will only surface if the
> driver is indeed buggy. I've thought about this conditional being
> removed for awhile, since it will protect against a poorly written
> driver wrt
> - "if (ret == NETDEV_TX_LOCKED && lockless)" is buggy, and
> the lockless
> check should be removed, since driver will return
> NETDEV_TX_LOCKED only
> if lockless is true and driver has to do the locking. In
> the original
> code as well as the latest code, this code can result in a bug
- Converted to use switch/case code which looks neater.
- "if (ret == NETDEV_TX_LOCKED && lockless)" is buggy, and the lockless
check should be removed, since driver will return NETDEV_TX_LOCKED only
if lockless is true and driver has to do the locking. In the original
code as well as the la
