Re: RTNL assert

From: David Woodhouse (dwmw2@infradead.org)
Date: Mon Oct 30 2000 - 10:11:46 EST

Next message: Philipp Rumpf: "Re: [PROPOSED PATCH] ATM refcount + firestream"
Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: RTNL assert"
Next in thread: Jeff Garzik: "Re: RTNL assert"
Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: RTNL assert"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Andrew Morton wrote:

> The rtnetlink lock needs to be taken around
> register_netdevice(). There should be a function
> which does these three common steps, but there isn't.

I thought the only difference between register_netdev() and
register_netdevice() was that one took the rtnl_lock and the other didn't?

But it's been a while since I played with networking code.

-- dwmw2

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Philipp Rumpf: "Re: [PROPOSED PATCH] ATM refcount + firestream"
Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: RTNL assert"
Next in thread: Jeff Garzik: "Re: RTNL assert"
Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: RTNL assert"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:26 EST