Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> IOW:
> Either we must demand that CPU 2 uses irq-safe spinlocks in order to
> protect against sk->write_space(), or we must demand that CPU 1 should drop
> 'lock1' before being allowed to call dev_kfree_skb_any().
Or dev_kfree_skb_any() should consider disabled local interrupts as
'in_irq()' and call dev_kfree_skb_irq() in this case, or the driver
could call dev_kfree_irq() if it really wants to free while holding an
irq spinlock.
But that's a known problem:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=dev_kfree_skb_any&hl=en&rnum=1&selm=linux.net.20010905.184245.94554736.davem%40redhat.com
-- Manfred - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 23 2001 - 21:00:28 EST