On 2014-04-15 21:00, Dave Taht wrote: > Thx felix! > > Given that there seems to be a potential race in the code > review I did at: > > http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/442#note-22 > > another thought is to make the increment and decrement of > > txq->pending_frame atomic, or to do a flush before the unlock I'm not convinced that there's a race that involves txq->pending_frames. There is no need to make the increment/decrement atomic, because that variable is already protected by the txq lock.
> What tree is this patch against? mac80211 from OpenWrt trunk. - Felix _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
