On 2014-04-16 17:34, Dave Taht wrote: > 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. Where?
- Felix _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
