On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 10:50 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Your mailer is word wrapping the patch so it won't apply as is.
Apologies - I'll make sure it doesn't for the next revision. There
should also have been a copy attached to the email that I would not
expect to be wrapped.
Thanks
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 10:52 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:16:48 +0100
Kieran Mansley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add support to Xen netfront for accelerated plugin module
+/*
+ * List of all netfront accelerator plugin modules available. Each
+ * list
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 08:15 +0100, Kieran Mansley wrote:
RCU on its own wouldn't
prevent the accelerated plugin being unloaded while netfront was using
one of the hooks.
Hmm, actually I think it could be used to do that. I'll take a look.
Kieran
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On 22/5/07 08:28, Kieran Mansley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 08:15 +0100, Kieran Mansley wrote:
RCU on its own wouldn't
prevent the accelerated plugin being unloaded while netfront was using
one of the hooks.
Hmm, actually I think it could be used to do that. I'll
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 08:48 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
On 22/5/07 08:28, Kieran Mansley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 08:15 +0100, Kieran Mansley wrote:
RCU on its own wouldn't
prevent the accelerated plugin being unloaded while netfront was using
one of the hooks.
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 08:48 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
On 22/5/07 08:28, Kieran Mansley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 08:15 +0100, Kieran Mansley wrote:
RCU on its own wouldn't
prevent the accelerated plugin being unloaded while netfront was using
one of the hooks.
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 15:07 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
On 22/5/07 13:44, Kieran Mansley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eagerly zap the function pointers, then wait one RCU period so every CPU
goes through a quiescent point before unloading the module?
-- Keir
Am I right in thinking that
On 22/5/07 13:44, Kieran Mansley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eagerly zap the function pointers, then wait one RCU period so every CPU
goes through a quiescent point before unloading the module?
-- Keir
Am I right in thinking that if one of the functions that was protected
by RCU was to
On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:44:28 +0100
Kieran Mansley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 08:48 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
On 22/5/07 08:28, Kieran Mansley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 08:15 +0100, Kieran Mansley wrote:
RCU on its own wouldn't
prevent
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 08:05 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
The same thing is already done to handle network protocols already.
RCU is used for the object handle (including function pointers).
You need to use:
* put rcu structure in accelerator list member
and initialize it to the
On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:16:48 +0100
Kieran Mansley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add support to Xen netfront for accelerated plugin module
diff -r ce3d5c548e67 linux-2.6-xen-
sparse/drivers/xen/netfront/netfront.c
--- a/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/drivers/xen/netfront/netfront.c Thu May 17
09:56:38
On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:16:48 +0100
Kieran Mansley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add support to Xen netfront for accelerated plugin module
+/*
+ * List of all netfront accelerator plugin modules available. Each
+ * list entry is of type struct netfront_accelerator.
+ */
+static struct
O
+
+/*
+ * Macro to call one of the accelerator's function hooks. The use
+ * count for the accelerator's hooks is incremented for the duration
+ * of the call to prevent the accelerator being able to modify the
+ * hooks in the middle (by, for example, unloading)
+ */
+#define
13 matches
Mail list logo
