[Top] [All Lists]

Re: PROBLEM: 2.6.11-rc2 hangs on bridge shutdown (br0)

To: "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: 2.6.11-rc2 hangs on bridge shutdown (br0)
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 05:32:18 +1100
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mirko.parthey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 07:50:39PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
> Yes, IPv6 needs "split device" semantics
> (for per-device statistics such as Ip6InDelivers etc),
> and I like later solution.

OK.  Is there any reason why IPv4 should be different from IPv6 in
this respect though?

If the split device dst's are to be kept, we'll need a way to clean
them up.  There are two choices:

1) Put the dst's on IPv6's own GC so that we can search by rt6i_idev.
2) Change the generic GC so that dst->ops->ifdown is always called even
if dst->dev does not match with the device going down.  We also need to
change the individual ifdown functions to check for ->dev.  The IPv6
ifdown function can then check for ->rt6i_idev as well.

What's your preference?

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

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