[NET]: Add netif_tx_lock

[net-next-2.6.git] / net / core / dev.c

diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 6bfa78c66c2546722dc2a7d309715fbbd1dbe80f..1b09f1cae46ea069e6f709895f33a5a28eb79c4a 100644 (file)
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -1282,15 +1282,13 @@ int __skb_linearize(struct sk_buff *skb, gfp_t gfp_mask)
 
 #define HARD_TX_LOCK(dev, cpu) {                       \
        if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_LLTX) == 0) {      \
-               spin_lock(&dev->xmit_lock);             \
-               dev->xmit_lock_owner = cpu;             \
+               netif_tx_lock(dev);                     \
        }                                               \
 }
 
 #define HARD_TX_UNLOCK(dev) {                          \
        if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_LLTX) == 0) {      \
-               dev->xmit_lock_owner = -1;              \
-               spin_unlock(&dev->xmit_lock);           \
+               netif_tx_unlock(dev);                   \
        }                                               \
 }
 
@@ -1389,8 +1387,8 @@ int dev_queue_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb)
        /* The device has no queue. Common case for software devices:
           loopback, all the sorts of tunnels...
 
-          Really, it is unlikely that xmit_lock protection is necessary here.
-          (f.e. loopback and IP tunnels are clean ignoring statistics
+          Really, it is unlikely that netif_tx_lock protection is necessary
+          here.  (f.e. loopback and IP tunnels are clean ignoring statistics
           counters.)
           However, it is possible, that they rely on protection
           made by us here.
@@ -2805,7 +2803,7 @@ int register_netdevice(struct net_device *dev)
        BUG_ON(dev->reg_state != NETREG_UNINITIALIZED);
 
        spin_lock_init(&dev->queue_lock);
-       spin_lock_init(&dev->xmit_lock);
+       spin_lock_init(&dev->_xmit_lock);
        dev->xmit_lock_owner = -1;
 #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT
        spin_lock_init(&dev->ingress_lock);