| To: | becker@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: tx_timeout and timer serialisation |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 20 May 2000 02:37:31 -0700 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005200408460.825-100000@vaio.greennet> (message from Donald Becker on Sat, 20 May 2000 04:31:33 -0400 (EDT)) |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005200408460.825-100000@vaio.greennet> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 04:31:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx> And if that's acceptable behavior, I have a new version of del_timer() that's very small and fast ;->. How do you accomplish this and still respect the environment of the timer function itself, ie. that the timer is not scheduled and outside of self-inflicted locking issues the timer function may add it's timer. Does your solution involve holding the timer list lock during the timer function invocation? If so, wait for troubles... Later, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Previous by Date: | Re: tx_timeout and timer serialisation, Donald Becker |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: tx_timeout and timer serialisation, Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: tx_timeout and timer serialisation, Donald Becker |
| Next by Thread: | Re: tx_timeout and timer serialisation, Donald Becker |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |