On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:28PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> fwd_cnt and last_fwd_cnt are protected by rx_lock, so we should use
> the same spinlock also if we are in the TX path.
>
> Move also buf_alloc under the same lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella
> ---
>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:28PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > fwd_cnt and last_fwd_cnt are protected by rx_lock, so we should use
> > the same spinlock also if we are in the TX path.
> >
> > Move also buf_alloc under the same
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:28PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> fwd_cnt and last_fwd_cnt are protected by rx_lock, so we should use
> the same spinlock also if we are in the TX path.
>
> Move also buf_alloc under the same lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella
Wait a second is this
fwd_cnt and last_fwd_cnt are protected by rx_lock, so we should use
the same spinlock also if we are in the TX path.
Move also buf_alloc under the same lock.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella
---
include/linux/virtio_vsock.h| 2 +-
net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 4 ++--
4 matches
Mail list logo