+int register_pernet_gen_device(int *id, struct pernet_operations *ops)
+{
+int error;
+mutex_lock(net_mutex);
+again:
+error = ida_get_new_above(net_generic_ids, 1, id);
+if (error) {
+if (error == -EAGAIN) {
+ida_pre_get(net_generic_ids,
Hi!
NOTE: Due to problems with my MTA configuration two earlier attempts reached
linux-pm
but not linux-kernel. Please cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] on replies.
This patchset is a prototype using the container infrastructure and
the swsusp freezer to freeze a group of tasks. I've merely taken
On Thu 2008-04-03 14:03:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch is the first step in making the refrigerator() available
to all architectures, even for those without power management.
The purpose of such a change is to be able to use the refrigerator()
in a new control group subsystem
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
for_each_net(net) {
-restart:
- for_each_netdev_safe(net, dev, n) {
- if (dev-rtnl_link_ops == ops) {
- ops-dellink(dev);
- goto restart;
- }
- }
+
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Add the elastic array of void * pointer to the struct net.
The access rules are simple:
1. register the ops with register_pernet_gen_device to get
the id of your private pointer
2. call net_assign_generic() to put the private data on the
struct net (most
[snip]
@@ -29,10 +32,21 @@ static __net_init int setup_net(struct net *net)
/* Must be called with net_mutex held */
struct pernet_operations *ops;
int error;
+struct net_generic *ng;
atomic_set(net-count, 1);
atomic_set(net-use_count, 0);
+error =
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:55:59AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:06:24PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
This is the first step in making tuntap devices work in net
namespaces. The structure mentioned is pointed by generic
net pointer with
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:55:59AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:06:24PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
This is the first step in making tuntap devices work in net
namespaces. The structure mentioned is pointed by
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Benjamin Thery wrote:
Eric, Pavel,
I haven't followed everything about the sysfs/netns issue recently and I
think I have missed some of its recent developments in the past weeks.
So I'm wondering what is the current
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Hi, guys.
I've recently sent a TUN devices virtualization, but it was rejected
by Dave, since the struct net is becoming a dumping ground.
I agree with him - we really need some way to register on-net data
dynamically. That's my view of such a thing and two examples
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Hi, guys.
I've recently sent a TUN devices virtualization, but it was rejected
by Dave, since the struct net is becoming a dumping ground.
I agree with him - we really need some way to register on-net data
dynamically. That's my view of such a
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 07:45:06PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:55:59AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:06:24PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
This is the first step in making tuntap
From: Pavel Emelyanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:57:25 +0400
I think, that core kernel code and protocols should/may use the struct
net, while modules are better to work via generic pointers. However, if
the generic pointers cause noticeable performance degradation, then we
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Paul Menage ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This is a list of some of the sub-projects that I'm planning for
Control Groups, or that I know others are planning on or working on.
Any comments or suggestions are
14 matches
Mail list logo
