Re: migrating to lock

To:	eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henner Eisen)
Subject:	Re: migrating to lock_sock()
From:	kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:	Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:54:20 +0300 (MSK)
Cc:	netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<200012192336.AAA11831@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Henner Eisen" at Dec 20, 0 00:36:33 am
Sender:	owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Hello!

> o.k., thus I need to implement an own function. Would it make sense
> to implement it inside the network core such that other protocols
> that want to migrate to lock_sock() locking can re-use it?

Well, you are the first who needs it. 8)

Probably. Actually, it is not very clear. Stateful protocols
(f.e. TCP) have their own wakeup predicates.

In fact, sock_alloc_send_skb() is typical example of wrong function:
it tries to satisfy everyone (f.e. fallback allocation is used only
by af_unix streams).

Alexey

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
migrating to lock_sock(), Henner Eisen Re: migrating to lock_sock(), kuznet Re: migrating to lock_sock(), Henner Eisen Re: migrating to lock_sock(), kuznet <=

Previous by Date:	Re: alignment issues on netif_rx, kuznet
Next by Date:	Re: lapb module irq context problems, David S. Miller
Previous by Thread:	Re: migrating to lock_sock(), Henner Eisen
Next by Thread:	skb_linearize needs fixing?, Rusty Russell
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

Re: migrating to lock_sock()