From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] gianfar: Do not call skb recycling with disabled IRQs Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:08:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20091108.010848.116517157.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20091105165738.GA31923@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jdl@jdl.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, afleming@freescale.com, jason.wessel@windriver.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, buytenh@wantstofly.org To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091105165738.GA31923@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Anton Vorontsov Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:57:38 +0300 > But that basically means that with skb recycling we can't safely > use KGDBoE, though we can add something like this: Please stop adding special logic only to your driver to handle these things. Either it's a non-issue, or it's going to potentially be an issue for everyone using skb_recycle_check() in a NAPI driver, right? So why not add the "in_interrupt()" or whatever check to skb_recycle_check() and if the context is unsuitable return false (0) ok?