Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 May 2001 21:00:52 +1000 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: NETDEV_CHANGE events when __LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER is modified |
| |
kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote: > > Hello! > > > It protects the as-yet-unchanged PCI and Cardbus drivers from a > > fatal race. > > Fatal race remained.
Don't think so. We have exclusion against all netdevice ioctls across probe. Still. It doesn't matter.
> Andrew, you start again the story about white bull. 8) > We have already discussed this. Device cannot stay in device list > uninitialzied. Period. > > I am sorry, but no compromise is possible. With Jeff's approach all > the references to init_etherdev and dev_probe_lock must be eliminated > in 2.4.
Once init_etherdev() has gone, yes, dev_probe_lock() can go.
> > and sys_ioctl() both do lock_kernel(). If xxx_probe() drops the BKL, > > Again, BKL has nothing to do with this (and ioctl does not hold it)
asmlinkage long sys_ioctl(unsigned int fd, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) { struct file * filp; unsigned int flag; int on, error = -EBADF;
filp = fget(fd); if (!filp) goto out; error = 0; lock_kernel();
The CPU running ifconfig spins here.
> It looks like you forgot all the discussion around your own patch. 8) > > If you want I can retransmit the mails which resulted in your patch?
It doesn't matter... I think we agree that init_etherdev() must die, and dev_probe_lock() with it, and that Jeff's alloc_etherdev() is an appropriate way of doing it?
Actually, yes. Please tell me what problem you think we still have in current kernels, which dev_probe_lock() does not prevent?
- - 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/
| |