lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [ATM] first pass at fixing atm spinlock
Date
From
In message <20030319025734.C35024@sfgoth.com>,Mitchell Blank Jr writes:
>> i dont know. i believe all of the adapters do a synchronous close.
>I'm really not sure it's that safe. At the very least the drivers all
>need to make sure that their ->close() excludes their interrupt/bh work

i suppose i could be he-centric. when the rx and tx close complete you
know you wont be getting anymore traffic in the queues regarding that
vpi/vcc. i suppose other cards might now have this feature. some
drivers just keep a pointer to vcc in a table. so it they dont use
atm_vcc_lookup() each time they need a receieve then i guess the vcc's
will need some sort of ref counting. i am generally against this
scheme, but it could be made to work.

>Great - now we just have to do the same thing for vcc's :-)

actually i think the vcc related code is 'broken'. since the vcc is
really attached to a struct sock, the vcc code should be more sock-centric.
sock provides ref counting, locks, linking, hash support. at the time
the atm code was initially written, struct sock might not have been
generic enough.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.049 / U:0.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site