On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:16:33PM +0800, Gao Feng wrote:
> At 2017-08-08 17:43:24, "Guillaume Nault" <g.na...@alphalink.fr> wrote:
> >--- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
> >+++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
> >@@ -1915,21 +1915,23 @@ static void __ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch)
> >     spin_unlock(&pch->downl);
> >     /* see if there is anything from the attached unit to be sent */
> >     if (skb_queue_empty(&pch->file.xq)) {
> >-            read_lock(&pch->upl);
> >             ppp = pch->ppp;
> >             if (ppp)
> >-                    ppp_xmit_process(ppp);
> >-            read_unlock(&pch->upl);
> >+                    __ppp_xmit_process(ppp);
> >     }
> > }
> > 
> > static void ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch)
> > {
> >-    local_bh_disable();
> >-
> >-    __ppp_channel_push(pch);
> >-
> >-    local_bh_enable();
> >+    read_lock_bh(&pch->upl);
> >+    if (pch->ppp) {
> >+            (*this_cpu_ptr(pch->ppp->xmit_recursion))++;
> >+            __ppp_channel_push(pch);
> >+            (*this_cpu_ptr(pch->ppp->xmit_recursion))--;
> >+    } else {
> >+            __ppp_channel_push(pch);
> >+    }
> >+    read_unlock_bh(&pch->upl);
> 
> If invoked read_lock_bh in ppp_channel_push, it would be unnecessary to 
> invoke read_lock(&pch->upl)
> in the __ppp_channel_push.
> 
But this patch does remove read_lock(&pch->upl) from
__ppp_channel_push(). Or have I misunderstood your point?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to