Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Moni Shoua [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Moni Shoua [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When bonding enslaves non Ethernet devices it takes pointers to functions
in the module that owns the slaves. In this case it becomes unsafe
to keep the bonding master
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Moni Shoua [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When bonding enslaves non Ethernet devices it takes pointers to functions
in the module that owns the slaves. In this case it becomes unsafe
to keep the bonding master registered after last slave was unenslaved
because we don't know
Moni Shoua [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Moni Shoua [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When bonding enslaves non Ethernet devices it takes pointers to functions
in the module that owns the slaves. In this case it becomes unsafe
to keep the bonding master registered after last slave
Moni Shoua [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When bonding enslaves non Ethernet devices it takes pointers to functions
in the module that owns the slaves. In this case it becomes unsafe
to keep the bonding master registered after last slave was unenslaved
because we don't know if the pointers are still
When bonding enslaves non Ethernet devices it takes pointers to functions
in the module that owns the slaves. In this case it becomes unsafe
to keep the bonding master registered after last slave was unenslaved
because we don't know if the pointers are still valid. Destroying the bond
when
