Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261187AbVDIJAJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Apr 2005 05:00:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261215AbVDIJAJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Apr 2005 05:00:09 -0400 Received: from dbl.q-ag.de ([213.172.117.3]:57831 "EHLO dbl.q-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261187AbVDIJAE (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Apr 2005 05:00:04 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:56:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Manfred Spraul X-X-Sender: manfred@dbl.q-ag.de To: "Paul E. McKenney" cc: Francois Romieu , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 3/4] Change synchronize_kernel to _rcu and _sched In-Reply-To: <20050408010949.GB1299@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 740 Lines: 24 [Jeff added to cc list - it's a network driver question] On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > /* Give a racing hard_start_xmit a few cycles to complete. */ > > > - synchronize_kernel(); I haven't read the whole driver, but what about spin_unlock_wait(&dev->xmit_lock); ? hard_start_xmit is called under dev->xmit_lock, waiting until the lock is free would guarantee that all running instances of hard_start_xmit have completed. Jeff: Is that still correct? -- 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/