| To: | Stefan Rompf <srompf@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Deadlock in sungem/ip_auto_config/linkwatch |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:02:48 -0800 |
| Cc: | mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200401051550.51063.srompf@isg.de> |
| References: | <1073307882.2041.98320.camel@brick.watson.ibm.com> <200401051550.51063.srompf@isg.de> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:50:50 +0100 Stefan Rompf <srompf@xxxxxx> wrote: > Btw, what is the planned difference between rtnl_shlock() and rtnl_exlock()? > Even though the later is a null operation right now, I don't want to hold > more locks than needed in the linkwatch code. The idea was originally to make the RTNL semaphore a read-write one, but I doubt we'll ever make that happen and the shlock bits will just disappear entirely. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.0: something is leaking memory, Erik Hensema |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] multiple eth0 mixed PCI/ISA init, Stephen Hemminger |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Deadlock in sungem/ip_auto_config/linkwatch, Stefan Rompf |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 0/3] [bonding 2.4] Using per-bond parameters, Amir Noam |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |