On Sat Jan 28 2023, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> This changes the handling of an unlikely condition to not stop dequeuing
> if taprio failed to dequeue the peeked skb in taprio_dequeue().
>
> I've no idea when this can happen, but the only side effect seems to be
> that the atomic_sub_return() call right above will have consumed some
> budget. This isn't a big deal, since either that made us remain without
> any budget (and therefore, we'd exit on the next peeked skb anyway), or
> we could send some packets from other TXQs.
>
> I'm making this change because in a future patch I'll be refactoring the
> dequeue procedure to simplify it, and this corner case will have to go
> away.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

Reviewed-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>