Subject: Re: atl1 warn_on_slowpath help

From: Patrick McHardy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:26:50 +0100

Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 02:09:08PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>   
>>> As a matter of fact without this patch it's not so apparent why
>>> netif_receive_skb() can't happen after netif_nit_deliver() in
>>> __vlan_hwaccel_rx() too.
>>>       
>> I don't understand what you're saying.
>>     
>
> It's still about this bypassing: netif_receive_skb() can be called
> after netif_nit_deliver().
>   

I still don't follow - are you talking about the code with out
without this patch? In the later case, why should we call it
recursively without the need to do so?