On Wednesday 13 September 2006 15:25, Larry Finger wrote: > Michael Buesch wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 September 2006 04:25, Larry Finger wrote: > >> Michael, > >> > >> I still have not gotten a network guru to answer any questions about > >> synchronize_net, but I have been testing the patch below: > > > > I'd say this is racy. > > Did you test this on SMP? > > No - I don't have the hardware. > > > >> Index: wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_main.c > >> =================================================================== > >> --- wireless-2.6.orig/drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_main.c > >> +++ wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/bcm43xx_main.c > >> @@ -3169,8 +3169,8 @@ static void bcm43xx_periodic_work_handle > >> * be preemtible. > >> */ > >> mutex_lock(&bcm->mutex); > >> - netif_stop_queue(bcm->net_dev); > >> synchronize_net(); > > > > A TX handler starts on another CPU. > > > >> + netif_stop_queue(bcm->net_dev); > > > > It's still running... boom. > > > > I see your point, but the current way breaks a UP system! What to do?
Simple. Reading the code of synchronize_net() and netif_stop_queue() and thinking about why it breaks, instead of committing bugfixes that only substitute one bug by another. ;) I'll take a look, too. -- Greetings Michael. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
