| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/7] netpoll: fix ->poll() locking |
| From: | Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:14:40 -0700 |
| Cc: | jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050422155958.474a150c.davem@davemloft.net> |
| References: | <4.454130102@selenic.com> <5.454130102@selenic.com> <17001.31150.194263.732284@segfault.boston.redhat.com> <20050422155218.223fa84d.davem@davemloft.net> <17001.33427.462497.856777@segfault.boston.redhat.com> <20050422155958.474a150c.davem@davemloft.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 03:59:58PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:02:43 -0400 > Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Oh yes, of course. Somehow I managed to forget that we now squirrel away > > the struct netpoll pointer in the net_device. Previously you could > > register multiple netpoll clients to one device, and this was useful for > > say doing netconsole and netdump over the same interface. If we've removed > > this ability, this is a bad thing. Oh dear... Hrm, it appears I forgot about that when I did the recent rework. > In such a configuration, how did the netpoll code "tell" who the > receive packets were for or did it send them to all registered > netpoll clients for that device? It walked a global list of clients. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: NAPI, e100, and system performance problem, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: NAPI, e100, and system performance problem, Stephen Hemminger |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/7] netpoll: fix ->poll() locking, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/7] netpoll: fix ->poll() locking, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |