[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH][ATM] use rtnl_{lock,unlock} during device operations (take 2)
David S. Miller wrote:
> It's more like an IP tunnel and a route, granted.

Even with the route, the destination can remain "fixed".
The VCC only makes sense in the context of the device, which
is fully visible to the user. (It's different in the case of
SVCs, but they're managed by a user space demon. Besides, if
their device goes away, they die too.)

> And those are
> similarly configured, and to me the same rules apply.

Why do you care ? That part of the current design is
technically adequate and reasonably simple. Littering the
code with asynchronous code paths would only make it more

(If you want to keep Chas busy, the communication between
the kernel and its demons may be a much more interesting
topic ;-)

- Werner

/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina /
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:36    [W:0.102 / U:8.044 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site