2007/12/5, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The idea is to not touch the unicast stuff at all on the multicast path.
>
> Anyway, this was discussed on netdev so please check the archives because
> there is more to this than just changing the multicast handling. We also
> talked about
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:30:10PM +0900, Joonwoo Park wrote:
>
> @@ -140,9 +147,11 @@ int dev_mc_sync(struct net_device *to, struct net_device
> *from)
> da = next;
> }
> if (!err)
> - __dev_set_rx_mode(to);
> + pending = __dev_set_rx_mode(to);
>
2007/12/5, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Joonwoo Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > dev_set_rx_mode calls __dev_set_rx_mode with softirq disabled (by
> > netif_tx_lock_bh)
> > therefore __dev_set_promiscuity can be called with softirq disabled.
> > It will cause in_interrupt() to
2007/12/5, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Joonwoo Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
dev_set_rx_mode calls __dev_set_rx_mode with softirq disabled (by
netif_tx_lock_bh)
therefore __dev_set_promiscuity can be called with softirq disabled.
It will cause in_interrupt() to return true and
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:30:10PM +0900, Joonwoo Park wrote:
@@ -140,9 +147,11 @@ int dev_mc_sync(struct net_device *to, struct net_device
*from)
da = next;
}
if (!err)
- __dev_set_rx_mode(to);
+ pending = __dev_set_rx_mode(to);
2007/12/5, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The idea is to not touch the unicast stuff at all on the multicast path.
Anyway, this was discussed on netdev so please check the archives because
there is more to this than just changing the multicast handling. We also
talked about consolidating the
6 matches
Mail list logo
