Subject: Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2

From: "David S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:45:35 -0700

On 11 Sep 2004 16:15:32 -0400
jamal <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If i was the one who had thought of the need for this new lock-riddance
> then i would have done it as follows:
> - have a devices xmit_lock as an alias to this other lock in case of
> NETIF_F_LLTX 
> Then you wouldnt have to touch this code. Infact if it is not too late
> why not do it like that?

If you turn dev->xmit_lock into a spinlock pointer, that would
incur much deeper changes across the tree than Andi's version
because there are a lot of xmit_lock explicit references out
there.

I think Andi made the right choice for his implementation.
And frankly I don't what is worrying about the
"-1" return value, it can occur in only one spot in a very
specific controlled case and it's behavior is incredibly well
defined (if not by accurate comments then by the code itself :-)