On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 09:16:24PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:

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

quoted

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.

But this mutex doesn't have to be mutex. And it's not for the tx path,
only for "service" just like netif_tx_lock(). The fast path needs only
queue->tx_lock.

Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html