From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
Subject: Re: tun.c patch to fix "smp_processor_id() in preemptible code"
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:10:58 -0400
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <1098223857.23367.35.camel@krustophenia.net>
References: <E1CK1e6-0004F3-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
	 <1098222676.23367.18.camel@krustophenia.net>
	 <20041019215401.GA16427@gondor.apana.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua,
        Linux Network Development <netdev@oss.sgi.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, maxk@qualcomm.com,
        irda-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20041019215401.GA16427@gondor.apana.org.au>
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 17:54, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:51:17PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, here is the correct patch.  If this is really just a matter of
> > performance, and not required for correctness, disabling preemption is
> > broken, right?
> 
> No if you're doing this then you should get rid of netif_rx_ni()
> altogether.  But before you do that please ask all the people who
> call it.

There are not a lot of them:

drivers/s390/net/ctcmain.c
drivers/s390/net/netiucv.c
drivers/net/irda/vlsi_ir.c
drivers/net/tun.c

>>From netiuvc.c:

  /*
   * Since receiving is always initiated from a tasklet (in iucv.c),
   * we must use netif_rx_ni() instead of netif_rx()
   */

This implies that the author thought it was a matter of correctness to
use netif_rx_ni vs. netif_rx.  But it looks like the only difference is
that the former sacrifices preempt-safety for performance.

I could not find maintainers for the two s390 drivers, or a specific
maintainer for vlsi_ir.

Lee