| To: | maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] af_pppox: create module infrastructure for protocol modules |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <5.1.0.14.2.20030429123317.10d71178@unixmail.qualcomm.com> |
| References: | <20030428.222728.48508327.davem@redhat.com> <20030429065419.GN25361@conectiva.com.br> <5.1.0.14.2.20030429123317.10d71178@unixmail.qualcomm.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:05:08 -0700
- Why do we have to bump module refcount for 'struct sock' with
_default_ callbacks ?
Nothing says that just because a sock uses default callbacks, it can't
be referenced in other ways by the implementation module, for example
it can sit in the protocol hash tables and that by itself requires
a module reference.
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Zero copy transmit, Michael Richardson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: purpose of the skb head pool, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] af_pppox: create module infrastructure for protocol modules, Max Krasnyansky |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] af_pppox: create module infrastructure for protocol modules, Max Krasnyansky |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |