On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 20:36 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 07:04:36PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
...

quoted

I'm sure as hell, I miss sth. but can't it be done by this pseudo-code:

...And I really doubt it can't be done like this.

Umm, of course it cannot, because then we'd have to take the mutex in
the TX path, which we cannot. We cannot have another lock in the TX
path, what's so hard to understand about? We need to be able to lock all
queues to lock out multiple tx paths at once in some (really) slow paths
but not have any extra lock overhead for the tx path, especially not a
single lock.

johannes