From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: cugyly@163.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Linyu.Yuan@alcatel-sbell.com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: tap: fix POLLOUT condition in tap_poll()
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 23:03:21 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171216.230321.468890097045981694.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1513261336-5209-1-git-send-email-cugyly@163.com>
From: yuan linyu <cugyly@163.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 22:22:16 +0800
> From: yuan linyu <Linyu.Yuan@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>
>
> from logical view, if sock_writeable(&q->sk) return false,
> original second condition will return false too,
> change it and make second condition can return true.
>
> Signed-off-by: yuan linyu <Linyu.Yuan@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>
...
> @@ -587,8 +587,7 @@ static unsigned int tap_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
> mask |= POLLIN | POLLRDNORM;
>
> if (sock_writeable(&q->sk) ||
> - (!test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &q->sock.flags) &&
> - sock_writeable(&q->sk)))
> + !test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &q->sock.flags))
> mask |= POLLOUT | POLLWRNORM;
>
> out:
> --
> 2.7.4
Hmmm, this same exact test also exists in tun_chr_poll().
The second condition probably never trigger, because of the reasons
you have listed. The only side effect is that it will set the
ASYNC_NOSPACE bit in the socket flags.
Logically, it seems we can remove the second condition altogether.
But I wonder what might break if we stop trying to set that socket
flags bit in this situation.
Overall, I'm not sure this change is safe at all.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-17 4:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-14 14:22 [PATCH net-next] net: tap: fix POLLOUT condition in tap_poll() yuan linyu
2017-12-17 4:03 ` David Miller [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171216.230321.468890097045981694.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=Linyu.Yuan@alcatel-sbell.com.cn \
--cc=cugyly@163.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox