From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olaf Kirch Subject: Re: [PATCH] Deadlock in af_packet/packet_rcv Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:45:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20041130114535.GF16970@suse.de> References: <20041125205503.GA18083@suse.de> <41AC3E2F.2030003@tpack.net> <20041130110110.GD16970@suse.de> <41AC5A26.6000400@tpack.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Tommy Christensen Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41AC5A26.6000400@tpack.net> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 12:31:50PM +0100, Tommy Christensen wrote: > I still don't agree with the conclusion, though. The spin_lock_bh() > is changed to a local_bh_disable() and an optional spin_lock(). > That should not lead to what you are seeing! Well, the code in 2.6.9 has #define HARD_TX_LOCK(dev, cpu) { \ if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_LLTX) == 0) { \ spin_lock(&dev->xmit_lock); \ dev->xmit_lock_owner = cpu; \ } \ } i.e. there's no local_bh_disable at all - adding the local_bh_disable was the whole point of my patch. Or did you refer to a different spinlock? Olaf -- Olaf Kirch | Things that make Monday morning interesting, #2: okir@suse.de | "We have 8,000 NFS mount points, why do we keep ---------------+ running out of privileged ports?"