From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Romieu Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ucc_geth: Lockless xmit Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:10:14 +0200 Message-ID: <20120924211014.GA17378@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <1348129021-28333-1-git-send-email-Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> <1348218675-3804-1-git-send-email-Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> <20120921125129.GA21792@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20120921173535.GA27934@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Joakim Tjernlund Return-path: Received: from violet.fr.zoreil.com ([92.243.8.30]:36567 "EHLO violet.fr.zoreil.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750943Ab2IXV2w (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:28:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Joakim Tjernlund : [...] > I don't get it. The skb test is there just for one special case, when > the BD ring is empty the (bd_status & T_R) == 0 will be true as well so > one need something more than the bd_status test. Sure but the converse is not true : (bd_status & T_R) == 0 && skb does not mean that the skb has been sent. It happens when said skb is about to be given to the hardware by hard_start_xmit as well. -- Ueimor