On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 00:24 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > There's no easy way to tell who asked for notifications. And > > particularly why they asked for notification. > > > > I think we should leave it as-is. If we have problems, we'll fix it. > > > > Or you could put your arp snoop code back in addr.c and address > > translation will not use netevents. But still thing we should leave > > it... > > I think the issues need to be addressed in some way. > > I think I see another issue with the destructor approach: ib_core could > be unloaded while skb with destructor pointing to our code is still around. > This will lead to nasty crashes without clear backtrace on screen if text > segment memory gets over-written and the destructor gets called afterwards. >
Yes...hmm... We could reference the module in the snoop function and deref it in the destructor function. > It currently seems that invoking the callback function directly rather than > sticking it in skb->destructor is the lesser of evils at this point. > But I'll think all this over, and I'd like to ask you to do this too, > and post some suggestions. > Ok. > I can think of some more complicated approaches that might work better > for iwarp. Off the top of my head, our netevents implementation could > keep a reference on the skb, start a timer, check the users counter on skb and > call the notifier chain when it drops to 1. Let's sleep on it. > Ok. I'll ponder it some more. But we could solve the module unload issue via module refs methinks. Steve. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
