On Tue, 09 May 2006 14:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 12:01:07 -0700
>
> > Something like this would handle errors better, but introduce possible
> > problems for drivers that call register_netdevice with irq's disabled.
> > There was some comment about racing with linkwatch, but don't see how
> > that could happen during creation.
> >
> > For 2.6.18?
>
> I've been thinking about this a bit more.
>
> How can anyone be using this with IRQ's disabled if we have
> an ASSERT_RTNL() there?
Agreed, especially since rtnl is now a real mutex. The case, that
I was worried about:
rtnl_lock()
spin_lock_irq(&mylock);
x = register_netdevice();
...
Doesn't show up in any current code, even for the pseudo devices
and funny virtualized interfaces.
-
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
