On Tue, 09 May 2006 15:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 14:40:49 -0700
>
> > Agreed, especially since rtnl is now a real mutex. The case, that
> > I was worried about:
> > rtnl_lock()
> >
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 14:40:49 -0700
> 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 curre
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_netde
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
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?
--- bridge.orig/include/linux/netdev
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:42:05 -0700
> In case of sysfs failure, don't let device be brought up.
> It can be cleared by unregister_netdevice so module can be unloaded
> normally.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm not so sure
In case of sysfs failure, don't let device be brought up.
It can be cleared by unregister_netdevice so module can be unloaded
normally.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- sky2-2.6.17.orig/net/core/dev.c 2006-04-21 12:21:45.0 -0700
+++ sky2-2.6.17/net/core/dev.c
