> It is linux-2.2, guy. 8) "threads" are not threaded there.
>
> Semaphores (rtnl_lock, particularly) protects only areas, which
> are going to _schedule_ excplicitly or implicitly.
ok, thanks a lot Alexey, now I understand.
> Please, read comments. People used to consider comments as
Hello!
>- it will nearly never allow concurrent accesses (seems to be what was
> intented when it was written)
Never, to be more exact. Concurrent accesses are allowed only with rtnetlink.
In 2.4 it is always exclusive, because shared access turned out to
be mostly useless.
>-
> No, it guarentees that only one process may be in the middle
> of modifying interface configuration state, the same and only
> guarentee it makes in 2.4.x as well.
ok, Dave. But the code in dev_ioctl() actually is :
rtnl_lock();
ret = dev_ifsioc(, cmd);
rtnl_unlock();
if only these
Date:Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:27:57 +0100 (MET)
From: Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Quoting "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> All of this is protected by lock_kernel() so none of the
> A,B,C,whatever spots can be interrupted in 2.2.x
so, does this mean that
Quoting "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:39:03 +0100 (MET)
>From: Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Thanks in advance for any comment,
>
> All of this is protected by lock_kernel() so none of the
> A,B,C,whatever spots can be interrupted in
Date:Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:39:03 +0100 (MET)
From: Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks in advance for any comment,
All of this is protected by lock_kernel() so none of the
A,B,C,whatever spots can be interrupted in 2.2.x
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To
Hello !
while I was searching how to implement an rtnl_lock() in the bonding code,
I discovered that the rtnl_shlock() function in 2.2.1[78] could misbehave if
CONFIG_RTNETLINK is not set :
- it will nearly never allow concurrent accesses (seems to be what was
intented when it was
Hello !
while I was searching how to implement an rtnl_lock() in the bonding code,
I discovered that the rtnl_shlock() function in 2.2.1[78] could misbehave if
CONFIG_RTNETLINK is not set :
- it will nearly never allow concurrent accesses (seems to be what was
intented when it was
Hello!
- it will nearly never allow concurrent accesses (seems to be what was
intented when it was written)
Never, to be more exact. Concurrent accesses are allowed only with rtnetlink.
In 2.4 it is always exclusive, because shared access turned out to
be mostly useless.
- it
It is linux-2.2, guy. 8) "threads" are not threaded there.
Semaphores (rtnl_lock, particularly) protects only areas, which
are going to _schedule_ excplicitly or implicitly.
ok, thanks a lot Alexey, now I understand.
Please, read comments. People used to consider comments as something
Quoting "David S. Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:39:03 +0100 (MET)
From: Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks in advance for any comment,
All of this is protected by lock_kernel() so none of the
A,B,C,whatever spots can be interrupted in 2.2.x
so,
No, it guarentees that only one process may be in the middle
of modifying interface configuration state, the same and only
guarentee it makes in 2.4.x as well.
ok, Dave. But the code in dev_ioctl() actually is :
rtnl_lock();
ret = dev_ifsioc(ifr, cmd);
rtnl_unlock();
if only these
Date:Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:39:03 +0100 (MET)
From: Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks in advance for any comment,
All of this is protected by lock_kernel() so none of the
A,B,C,whatever spots can be interrupted in 2.2.x
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To
Date:Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:27:57 +0100 (MET)
From: Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting "David S. Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
All of this is protected by lock_kernel() so none of the
A,B,C,whatever spots can be interrupted in 2.2.x
so, does this mean that
14 matches
Mail list logo
