From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: annie li Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next V3 2/3] xen-netfront: split event channels support for Xen frontend driver Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:35:14 -0400 Message-ID: <519D2C02.7080500@oracle.com> References: <1369240487-18834-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com> <1369240487-18834-3-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com> <519D1D61.8030500@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , David Vrabel , jbeulich@suse.com To: Wei Liu Return-path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:21028 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752428Ab3EVUep (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2013 16:34:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2013-5-22 16:20, Wei Liu wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:32 PM, annie li wrote: >> >> Originally, netfront protects access to rx shared-ring with tx_lock, you >> remove this protection here. It is better to protect the ring access by a >> sperate rx_lock then. >> > TX ring and RX ring are separate rings. I don't think that comment / code > makes sense any more. My stress test confirms that. Yes, they are separate rings. Actually I am not sure why RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_RESPONSES(&np->rx) is protected by any tx_lock originally. But for xennet_rx_interrupt, it is better to use rx_lock to protect RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_RESPONSES(&np->rx). Thanks Annie > > > Wei. > >> Thanks >> Annie >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org >> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > -- > 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