From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/1] ppp: Replace per-CPU recursion counter with lock-owner field
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:40:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <68a3115b-8ae6-47bc-aaf5-b38e4f83c5f9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250715150806.700536-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
On 7/15/25 5:08 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This is another approach to avoid relying on local_bh_disable() for
> locking of per-CPU in ppp.
>
> I redid it with the per-CPU lock and local_lock_nested_bh() as discussed
> in v1. The xmit_recursion counter has been removed since it served the
> same purpose as the owner field. Both were updated and checked.
>
> The xmit_recursion looks like a counter in ppp_channel_push() but at
> this point, the counter should always be 0 so it always serves as a
> boolean. Therefore I removed it.
>
> I do admit that this looks easier to review.
Thanks for reworking the change. I do agree with the above ;)
FTR no need to add a cover letter to a single patch series.
(but, since the matter at hand is IMHO non trivial, in this specific
case I'll preserve the cover letter)
/P
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-17 13:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-15 15:08 [PATCH net-next v3 0/1] ppp: Replace per-CPU recursion counter with lock-owner field Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-07-15 15:08 ` [PATCH net-next v3 1/1] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-07-15 17:37 ` [PATCH net-next v3 0/1] " Guillaume Nault
2025-07-17 13:40 ` Paolo Abeni [this message]
2025-07-17 13:50 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=68a3115b-8ae6-47bc-aaf5-b38e4f83c5f9@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=gnault@redhat.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).