On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 06:33:36PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:31:27AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure of your point... This patch is only to fix my yesterday's
> > doubt #1, and it doesn't introduce, I hope, any new live-lock
> > vulnerabity. So, if you mean doubt #2, there is needed a separate
> > patch, but I'm not sure there is a need to add a flag. I've thougt
> > about a counter in a Qdisc for consecutive requeues with
> > netif_schedule, so we could break after some limit. Of course, your
> > idea could be simpler and better, but if I could only see some code...
> 
> What I mean is the extremely unlikely scenario of net_tx_action
> always failing on trylock because dev_deactivate has grabbed the
> lock to check whether net_tx_action has completed.

Of course! I got it myself after responding and re-reading, sorry. So,
this is yet another doubt, but I still wonder why you don't attach
any code... (I'm currently trying to re-think this.)

Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html