On 02/12/15(Wed) 20:38, David Gwynne wrote:
>
> > On 30 Nov 2015, at 9:55 PM, David Gwynne wrote:
> >
> > this tweaks the guts of if_start so it guarantees that there's only
> > ever one call to ifp->if_start running in the system at a time.
> > previously this was implicit because it could only
> On 30 Nov 2015, at 9:55 PM, David Gwynne wrote:
>
> this tweaks the guts of if_start so it guarantees that there's only
> ever one call to ifp->if_start running in the system at a time.
> previously this was implicit because it could only be called with
> the KERNEL_LOCK held.
>
> as we move
> On 1 Dec 2015, at 5:40 AM, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
>
> On 30.11.2015. 12:55, David Gwynne wrote:
>> this tweaks the guts of if_start so it guarantees that there's only
>> ever one call to ifp->if_start running in the system at a time.
>> previously this was implicit because it could only be cal
On 30.11.2015. 12:55, David Gwynne wrote:
> this tweaks the guts of if_start so it guarantees that there's only
> ever one call to ifp->if_start running in the system at a time.
> previously this was implicit because it could only be called with
> the KERNEL_LOCK held.
>
> as we move forward it wo
this tweaks the guts of if_start so it guarantees that there's only
ever one call to ifp->if_start running in the system at a time.
previously this was implicit because it could only be called with
the KERNEL_LOCK held.
as we move forward it would be nice to run the queue without having
to take th