On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Felix Fietkau <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
It and "stopped" are briefly unprotected along that code path. > >> What tree is this patch against? > mac80211 from OpenWrt trunk. Thx, will try your patch today. > - Felix -- Dave Täht NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
