| To: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore |
| From: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:39:41 +0100 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <41916F0B.5010809@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <41899DCF.3050804@xxxxxxxxx> <E1CQDcP-0003ff-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041109161126.376f755c.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041110010113.GJ31969@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41916A91.3080107@xxxxxxxxx> <20041110012251.GK31969@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41916F0B.5010809@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
* Patrick McHardy <41916F0B.5010809@xxxxxxxxx> 2004-11-10 02:29 > Thomas Graf wrote: > >The action code might load modules in the middle of a classifier > >configuration and it will be very hard to reverse those changes. > >Right now we could move it to the top of all configurations and it > >would probably be possible to get back where we fetch the device > >but it will get impossible once a classifier requires module > >loading which is not unlikely. > > > > > Assuming all error-paths do proper cleanup, returning -EAGAIN > should always result in the same configuration state as before. I agree but this assumption is wrong, at least for u32. I agree that once this is true it would work perfectly fine, however I think it would be inefficient to parse the whole TLV tree multiple times. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore, Patrick McHardy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.10-rc1-mm4 -1 EAGAIN after allocation failure was: Re: Kernel 2.6.9 Multiple Page Allocation Failures, Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore, Patrick McHardy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore, Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |