> 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 lock/unlock guarantee this atomicity, then I can't
see why my A,B,C case could not work. If this is because the
kernel has been locked somewhere else, then why are the locks
still needed ? The author of rtnetlink.h has been very precautious
about the atomicity of these locks when CONFIG_RTNETLINK is set. I
don't understand why this could change in other cases. For this
reason, I don't know what to write in my code ...
Regards,
Willy
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 21:00:23 EST