On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:57:19PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > But this is yet another atomic operation on the transmit > path :-( This problem, however, is inevitable because of > how we do things and thus isn't the fault of your change. > > I'm going to apply this patch to 2.6.18, however... we should split > up the dev->state handling into seperate cacheline synchronizers. > Sharing RX and TX locking bits in the same word is not all that > efficient.
Good point. This particular bit doesn't even need to be atomic since it's sitting inside a spinlock. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
