Re: tun.c patch to fix "smp_processor_id() in preemptible code"

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 17:43, Alain Schroeder wrote:
> I was getting these traces on a SMP host:

Your patch:

+       preempt_disable();
        netif_rx_ni(skb);
+       preempt_enable();

just wraps this code in preempt_disable/enable:

static inline int netif_rx_ni(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
       int err = netif_rx(skb);
       if (softirq_pending(smp_processor_id()))
               do_softirq();
       return err;
}

Isn't this considered an incorrect use of preempt_disable/enable?  My
reasoning is that if this was correct we would see preempt_dis/enable
sprinkled all over the code which it isn't.

Why do you have to call do_softirq like that?  I was under the
impression that you raise a softirq and it gets run later.

Lee

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/