It's always wrong to copy symbols from another module without
referencing it.
Michael,
It seems like the preferred approach is to prevent ib_ipoib from being
unloaded while bonding is on top it, right?
It seems like it would handle all safety issues (not just neigh cleanup).
-
To
Quoting Moni Shoua [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: Re: Re: [PATCH V3 0/7] net/bonding: ADD IPoIB
support for?the bonding driver
It's always wrong to copy symbols from another module without
referencing it.
Michael,
It seems like the preferred approach
Quoting Moni Shoua [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V3 0/7] net/bonding: ADD IPoIB support for?the
bonding driver
Roland Dreier wrote:
1. When bonding enslaves an IPoIB device the bonding neighbor holds a
reference to a cleanup function in the IPoIB drives. This makes
Quoting Or Gerlitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH V3 0/7] net/bonding: ADD IPoIB support for?the
bonding driver
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Maybe we could use hard_header_cache/header_cache_update methods instead of
neighbour cleanup calls.
To do this, it is possible
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Maybe we could use hard_header_cache/header_cache_update methods instead of
neighbour cleanup calls.
To do this, it is possible that we'll have to switch from storing pointers
inside the neighbour to keeping an index there, but I expect the
performance impact to be
