Subject: Re: [PATCH] Deadlock in af_packet/packet_rcv

From: Olaf Kirch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:45:35 +0100

On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 12:31:50PM +0100, Tommy Christensen wrote:
> I still don't agree with the conclusion, though. The spin_lock_bh()
> is changed to a local_bh_disable() and an optional spin_lock().
> That should not lead to what you are seeing!

Well, the code in 2.6.9 has

#define HARD_TX_LOCK(dev, cpu) {                        \
	if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_LLTX) == 0) {      \
		spin_lock(&dev->xmit_lock);             \
		dev->xmit_lock_owner = cpu;             \
	}                                               \
}

i.e. there's no local_bh_disable at all - adding the local_bh_disable
was the whole point of my patch. Or did you refer to a different spinlock?

Olaf
-- 
Olaf Kirch     | Things that make Monday morning interesting, #2:
[email-masked]   |        "We have 8,000 NFS mount points, why do we keep
---------------+ 	 running out of privileged ports?"