jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thats the idea. But for now - I suggest we take L3 out of the equation
> and we revisit after the first agreeable patch is out.
L3 as in DORMANT_L3{DOWN,UP}? Sure.
>> Come on, making a patch showing the general idea as well as the
>> problematic details (locking) is trivial if the idea isn't broken.
>
> There are three patches posted. None of which is agreeable. I am failing
> to see the disagreements on these issues at the moment.
They (with exception of my own which doesn't require locking) were
incomplete to the point that no locking required internally by the kernel
was shown.
> But before we go there, can you please respond to the email i posted
> earlier about the details of where you stand on the 2863 issue? It seems
> i have misunderstood where people stood on that topic.
It's a secondary issue, I think we should derive it from the __LINK_STATE
bits just as IFF_* flags are derived. Probably just because it's easy and
I know how to do (have mostly done) it cleanly.
We could probably do 2863 entirely in userspace then.
But we can do it as proposed in the kernel (enum etc.) given that someone
does it correctly or at least shows the locking details.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
