| Message ID | 1292402398.3427.6.camel@edumazet-laptop |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote: > In ri_tasklet(), we run from softirq, so can directly handle packet > through netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx(). > There is no risk of recursion. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> > --- Acked-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 09:39 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > In ri_tasklet(), we run from softirq, so can directly handle packet > through netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx(). > There is no risk of recursion. Eric, did you do at least a simple test on this one? It used to be problematic (I cant remember why or what use case was problematic). cheers, jamal -- 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
Le mercredi 15 décembre 2010 à 07:49 -0500, jamal a écrit : > On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 09:39 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > In ri_tasklet(), we run from softirq, so can directly handle packet > > through netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx(). > > There is no risk of recursion. > > Eric, did you do at least a simple test on this one? > It used to be problematic (I cant remember why or > what use case was problematic). Yes, I run SFQ / IFB right now on my dev machine, and found SFQ bugs by the way ;) -- 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
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:49:23 -0500 jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 09:39 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > In ri_tasklet(), we run from softirq, so can directly handle packet > > through netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx(). > > There is no risk of recursion. > > Eric, did you do at least a simple test on this one? > It used to be problematic (I cant remember why or > what use case was problematic). Only risk is stack overflow. -- 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
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le mercredi 15 décembre 2010 à 07:49 -0500, jamal a écrit : > > Eric, did you do at least a simple test on this one? > > It used to be problematic (I cant remember why or > > what use case was problematic). > > Yes, I run SFQ / IFB right now on my dev machine, and found SFQ bugs by > the way ;) Ok, thanks;-> cheers, jamal -- 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
diff --git a/drivers/net/ifb.c b/drivers/net/ifb.c index bfa03db..a44901b 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ifb.c +++ b/drivers/net/ifb.c @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static void ri_tasklet(unsigned long dev) dev_queue_xmit(skb); } else if (from & AT_INGRESS) { skb_pull(skb, skb->dev->hard_header_len); - netif_rx(skb); + netif_receive_skb(skb); } else BUG(); }
In ri_tasklet(), we run from softirq, so can directly handle packet through netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx(). There is no risk of recursion. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> --- drivers/net/ifb.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 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