net/core: remove explicit do_softirq() from busy_poll_stop()

Since commit 217f69743681 ("net: busy-poll: allow preemption in
sk_busy_loop()") there is an explicit do_softirq() invocation after
local_bh_enable() has been invoked.
I don't understand why we need this because local_bh_enable() will
invoke do_softirq() once the softirq counter reached zero and we have
softirq-related work pending.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 net/core/dev.c | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> Since commit 217f69743681 ("net: busy-poll: allow preemption in
> sk_busy_loop()") there is an explicit do_softirq() invocation after
> local_bh_enable() has been invoked.
> I don't understand why we need this because local_bh_enable() will
> invoke do_softirq() once the softirq counter reached zero and we have
> softirq-related work pending.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> ---
>  net/core/dev.c | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index fca407b4a6ea..e84eb0ec5529 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -5199,8 +5199,6 @@ static void busy_poll_stop(struct napi_struct *napi, void *have_poll_lock)
>         if (rc == BUSY_POLL_BUDGET)
>                 __napi_schedule(napi);
>         local_bh_enable();
> -       if (local_softirq_pending())
> -               do_softirq();
>  }

preemption is disabled.

Look at netif_rx_ni() for a similar construct.

What exact problem do you have with existing code, that is worth
adding this change ?

Thanks.