From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:39252 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754658AbYGOJjx (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:39:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080715.023954.234208581.davem@davemloft.net> (sfid-20080715_113958_580646_EC79363F) To: johannes@sipsolutions.net Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: TXQ real_num_tx_queues comments/questions From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1216114621.3535.18.camel@johannes.berg> References: <1216113923.3535.14.camel@johannes.berg> <20080715.022854.55875400.davem@davemloft.net> <1216114621.3535.18.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Johannes Berg Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:37:01 +0200 > From mac80211's POV it's just that select_queue must have known > about the removed queue when the requeue is done. And we can defer > the requeue to a workqueue. Ok. So you're proposing the requeue be deferred to a workqueue and what else? RCU protection around real_num_tx_queues access?