On 12/03/14 15:40, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 18:57 -0500, David Miller wrote:
From: Zoltan Kiss <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:37:50 +0000
Maybe you mixed up mine with that? But that's also not eligible to be
applied yet.
I can always revert the series if there are major objections.
Zoltan -- does this patch series suffer from/expose the confusion
regarding RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS which we are discussing
separately on xen-devel? If the answer is yes then I think this series
should be reverted for the time being because there seems to be some
fairly fundamental questions about the semantics of that macro.
I haven't seen it causing any issue during my testing, although it went
through several XenRT nighlies. That topic
("RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS oddness" on xen-devel) came from
theoretical grounds. One outcome of it is that we should move that
napi_schedule from the callback to the end of the dealloc thread to be
on the safe side. I can post a short patch for that.
If the answer is no then I will endeavour to review this version of the
series ASAP (hopefully tomorrow) and determine if I have any other major
objections which would warrant a revert.
Ian.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
