From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] tun: don't require serialization lock on tx Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:54:34 +0300 Message-ID: <20160413165240-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <425e8f69ffd8fe315ef9d3cc678519c7060fb2e0.1460393493.git.pabeni@redhat.com> <20160413123828-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <570E15D9.4000308@stressinduktion.org> <20160413155654-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1460554028.10638.18.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa , Paolo Abeni , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , "Eric W. Biederman" , Greg Kurz , Jason Wang , Christian Borntraeger , Herbert Xu To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50715 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757460AbcDMNyj (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:54:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1460554028.10638.18.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 06:27:08AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > I. On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 15:57 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Fine, but what's the AF_PACKET duplication that Herbert Xu > > reported with NETIF_F_LLTX? Does anyone remember? > > Really a lot of virtual drivers use NETIF_F_LLTX these days. > > Duplication is more likely to happen with a qdisc, when a packet is > requeued if a driver returns NETDEV_TX_BUSY OK, now I understand what the duplication is about. What about NETDEV_TX_LOCKED? Looks like it might have the same effect? This might be worth documenting in include/linux/netdevice.h, might it not? -- MST