Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[patch\]\s+IP_FRAG_TIME\s+versus\s+unregister

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[patch\]\s+IP_FRAG_TIME\s+versus\s+unregister_netdevice\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:07:16 +1000; There's a piece of code at the end of unregister_netdevice() which waits for up to ten seconds waiting for the device to become un-busy. If the timeout is expired it prints the "Wait for crash" messa; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00067.html (13,904 bytes)
2. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: Philipp Rumpf <prumpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 16:06:01 +0100; 5: Use the refcount of the module containing the network device driver rather than a separate refcount. This is what most other subsystems do (it's also horrendously ugly, but it works with the curre; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00068.html (10,949 bytes)
3. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 08:29:44 -0700; 4: Make unregister_netdevice() wait until the device is free, as Alexey suggested in his comment. That's what this patch does. It waits indefinitely for the device to become free and prints a message; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00069.html (8,453 bytes)
4. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:20:47 +0400 (MSK DST); It must release this reference. I forgot to do this last step, of course, though all the necessary code to make this in self-consitent way was ready. Any code, queueing packet to process it at an un; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00070.html (10,180 bytes)
5. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:52:16 +1000; So apart from the defragmenter, all the notifiers are currently in place to hunt down all the skbuffs and release them when a NETDEV_UNREGISTER is broadcast? That's pretty damn impressive. It would b; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00072.html (8,694 bytes)
6. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 21:02:20 +1000; [ Fixed my column wrap this time :) ] This is not a module issue. It's an unregister_netdevice() issue. It's quite legitimate to call unregister_netdevice in a kernel which doesn't use modules at all; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00073.html (9,704 bytes)
7. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:09:55 +0400 (MSK DST); No, of course. And this case with defragmenter asserts this. 8) Why did it broadcast that message? Exactly to catch misbehaving users. Sleeping is inavoidable if caller of netdev_unregister expects; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00074.html (8,483 bytes)
8. [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:07:16 +1000; There's a piece of code at the end of unregister_netdevice() which waits for up to ten seconds waiting for the device to become un-busy. If the timeout is expired it prints the "Wait for crash" messa; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00196.html (13,904 bytes)
9. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: Philipp Rumpf <prumpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 16:06:01 +0100; 5: Use the refcount of the module containing the network device driver rather than a separate refcount. This is what most other subsystems do (it's also horrendously ugly, but it works with the curre; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00197.html (11,042 bytes)
10. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 08:29:44 -0700; 4: Make unregister_netdevice() wait until the device is free, as Alexey suggested in his comment. That's what this patch does. It waits indefinitely for the device to become free and prints a message; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00198.html (8,503 bytes)
11. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:20:47 +0400 (MSK DST); Hello! It must release this reference. I forgot to do this last step, of course, though all the necessary code to make this in self-consitent way was ready. Any code, queueing packet to process it at; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00199.html (10,205 bytes)
12. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:52:16 +1000; So apart from the defragmenter, all the notifiers are currently in place to hunt down all the skbuffs and release them when a NETDEV_UNREGISTER is broadcast? That's pretty damn impressive. It would b; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00201.html (8,748 bytes)
13. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 21:02:20 +1000; [ Fixed my column wrap this time :) ] This is not a module issue. It's an unregister_netdevice() issue. It's quite legitimate to call unregister_netdevice in a kernel which doesn't use modules at all; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00202.html (9,826 bytes)
14. Re: [patch] IP_FRAG_TIME versus unregister_netdevice (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:09:55 +0400 (MSK DST); Hello! No, of course. And this case with defragmenter asserts this. 8) Why did it broadcast that message? Exactly to catch misbehaving users. Sleeping is inavoidable if caller of netdev_unregister ex; /archives/netdev/2000-08/msg00203.html (8,508 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]