2017-11-03 5:16 GMT+01:00 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com>:
>> +/**
>> + * tp4q_enqueue_from_array - Enqueue entries from packet array to tp4 queue
>> + *
>> + * @a: Pointer to the packet array to enqueue from
>> + * @dcnt: Max number of entries to enqueue
>> + *
>> + * Returns 0 for success or an errno at failure
>> + **/
>> +static inline int tp4q_enqueue_from_array(struct tp4_packet_array *a,
>> + u32 dcnt)
>> +{
>> + struct tp4_queue *q = a->tp4q;
>> + unsigned int used_idx = q->used_idx;
>> + struct tpacket4_desc *d = a->items;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (q->num_free < dcnt)
>> + return -ENOSPC;
>> +
>> + q->num_free -= dcnt;
>
> perhaps annotate with a lockdep_is_held to document which lock
> ensures mutual exclusion on the ring. Different for tx and rx?
>
Good idea. I'll give that a try!
>> diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
>> index b39be424ec0e..190598eb3461 100644
>> --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
>> +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
>> @@ -189,6 +189,9 @@ static int packet_set_ring(struct sock *sk, union
>> tpacket_req_u *req_u,
>> #define BLOCK_O2PRIV(x) ((x)->offset_to_priv)
>> #define BLOCK_PRIV(x) ((void *)((char *)(x) + BLOCK_O2PRIV(x)))
>>
>> +#define RX_RING 0
>> +#define TX_RING 1
>> +
>
> Not needed if using bool for tx_ring below. The test effectively already
> treats it as bool: does not explicitly test these constants.
>
>> +static void packet_clear_ring(struct sock *sk, int tx_ring)
>> +{
>> + struct packet_sock *po = pkt_sk(sk);
>> + struct packet_ring_buffer *rb;
>> + union tpacket_req_u req_u;
>> +
>> + rb = tx_ring ? &po->tx_ring : &po->rx_ring;
>
>
> I meant here.
Yup, I'll remove/clean this up.
Björn
