> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:50:36 -0400 (EDT),
> Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Current if_addmulti() calls MALLOC() with M_WAITOK. However,
>> if_addmulti() can be called from in[6]_addmulti() with splnet(). It
>> may lead kernel panic.
> This is not a problem (or should n
< said:
> Current if_addmulti() calls MALLOC() with M_WAITOK. However,
> if_addmulti() can be called from in[6]_addmulti() with splnet(). It
> may lead kernel panic.
This is not a problem (or should not be). It is permissible to sleep
while some interrupts are blocked; it is just not (in 4-st
* Hajimu UMEMOTO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010715 12:31] wrote:
>
> ume> Index: sys/net/if.c
> ume> diff -u sys/net/if.c.orig sys/net/if.c
> ume> --- sys/net/if.c.origMon Jul 16 01:39:34 2001
> ume> +++ sys/net/if.c Mon Jul 16 01:51:49 2001
>
> Oops, it was wrong version.
One trick is to pass a
ume> Index: sys/net/if.c
ume> diff -u sys/net/if.c.orig sys/net/if.c
ume> --- sys/net/if.c.orig Mon Jul 16 01:39:34 2001
ume> +++ sys/net/if.c Mon Jul 16 01:51:49 2001
Oops, it was wrong version.
Index: sys/net/if.c
diff -u sys/net/if.c.orig sys/net/if.c
--- sys/net/if.c.orig Mon Jul 1
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 09:19:27 -0700
> Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
julian> NOWAIT MAY return.
julian> you have not handled the case for when it returns with a NULL allocation
julian> so if it returns NULL you continue, and page-fault immediatly.
Oops, thank you.
How about t
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
NOWAIT MAY return.
you have not handled the case for when it returns with a NULL allocation
so if it returns NULL you continue, and page-fault immediatly.
>
> Hi,
>
> Current if_addmulti() calls MALLOC() with M_WAITOK. However,
> if_addmulti() can be called from in[6]_ad
Hi,
Current if_addmulti() calls MALLOC() with M_WAITOK. However,
if_addmulti() can be called from in[6]_addmulti() with splnet(). It
may lead kernel panic. So, I wish to change to use M_NOWAIT.
Any comment?
Index: sys/net/if.c
diff -u sys/net/if.c.orig sys/net/if.c
--- sys/net/if.c.orig Wed
