[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice

To: andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx (Andrew Morton)
Subject: Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice
From: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:09:55 +0400 (MSK DST)
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <399FB860.635954F7@xxxxxxxxxx> from "Andrew Morton" at Aug 20, 0 08:52:16 pm
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

> So apart from the defragmenter, all the notifiers are currently in place to 
> hunt down all the skbuffs and release them when a NETDEV_UNREGISTER is 
> broadcast?
> That's pretty damn impressive.

No, of course. And this case with defragmenter asserts this. 8)

Why did it broadcast that message? Exactly to catch misbehaving users.

> It would be very nice to be able to finish this work off and to get rid of 
> the sleep altogether.  Are you saying that it's too big/too late to do this 
> for 2.4?

Sleeping is inavoidable if caller of netdev_unregister expects
synchronous operation, even if all the clients do the best efforts.
Clients may hold all the objects for reasonably short time, they
are allowed to sleep holding refcounted object etc. etc.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>