Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*request_module\s+while\s+holding\s+rtnl\s+semaphore\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*request_module\s+while\s+holding\s+rtnl\s+semaphore\s*$/: 46 ]

Total 46 documents matching your query.

1. nterruptible in 8139 to avoid shutdown hang (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:04:50 +0100; .camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-01-10 17:05 I started testing via the basic classifier but will do the cls_u32 changes soon and then remerge and do the final tests once all t; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg00415.html (11,931 bytes)
2. CP flag (score: 1): Author: do Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:47:52 +0100; ut format.) I've tested with 2.6.10.; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg00420.html (9,495 bytes)
3. ] ethertap and af_inet.c assertion failures (score: 1): Author: y Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:05:07 +0100; ng? diffstats: tg3.c | 6 +++++- 1 f; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg00437.html (9,696 bytes)
4. ]: act_api.c: drop rtnl for loading modules (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:47:20 +0100; ched/act_api.c 2005-01-11 22:32:30 +; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg00445.html (8,806 bytes)
5. request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: aber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:50:57 +0100; ck McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> diff -Nru a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg00446.html (9,188 bytes)
6. work function ARP Monitoring. Broken link. (score: 1): Author: y Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:18:49 +0100; 47 Just saw your patch, never mind.; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg00448.html (11,898 bytes)
7. wchecksum in sungem (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:57:36 +0100; d they replaced it. Somehow they managed to break the trackpad and sungem. The trackpad works sometimes, sometimes not. The sungem needs now Today I wondered w; /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00318.html (9,505 bytes)
8. ding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:04:09 +0100; an up all the error paths, allow changing all pararmeters for those not supporting it yet and to add the action bits for tcindex, route, and rsvp. Finishing it; /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00319.html (9,913 bytes)
9. request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 04:11:11 +0100; There are several instances of request_module beeing called while holding the rtnl semaphore in net/sched. A pratical problem with this is the teql scheduler which deadlocks when calling register_net; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00139.html (8,390 bytes)
10. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: vendra.koushik@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 10:35:45 +1100; There are a couple of causes for this problem: 1) Abuse of the rtnl. It's being used for too many things. It's basically the networking system's BKL. If the locking were more granular then this shoul; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00206.html (10,258 bytes)
11. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:11:26 -0800; I totally disagree. The use of rtnl for all networking configuration changes is a virtue of our current setup. All of these actions want to make sure devices don't disappear from underneath them whil; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00361.html (13,116 bytes)
12. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:38:07 +0100; David S. Miller wrote: On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 10:35:45 +1100 Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 2) Hooking random net/sched requests into rtnetlink. By being an rtnetlink user you pay the p; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00365.html (14,177 bytes)
13. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: y <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:01:13 +0100; * David S. Miller <20041109161126.376f755c.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2004-11-09 16:11 Sounds reasonable for the sch_api.c and cls_api.c case but will get very nasty for act_api as you noted and any furthe; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00368.html (11,052 bytes)
14. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:10:41 +0100; Thomas Graf wrote: Sounds reasonable for the sch_api.c and cls_api.c case but will get very nasty for act_api as you noted and any further sub layers that might be added in the future. (The classifie; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00369.html (10,090 bytes)
15. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:15:56 +1100; I agree with that. However, my point is that the RTNL is used for a lot more than that. You could do that if the RTNL was exclusively used for protecting net_device. As it is it protects RTNETLINK an; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00370.html (10,665 bytes)
16. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: raf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:22:51 +0100; * Patrick McHardy <41916A91.3080107@xxxxxxxxx> 2004-11-10 02:10 The action code might load modules in the middle of a classifier configuration and it will be very hard to reverse those changes. Right; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00371.html (10,677 bytes)
17. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:29:47 +0100; Thomas Graf wrote: * Patrick McHardy <41916A91.3080107@xxxxxxxxx> 2004-11-10 02:10 Can you please show an example of a case where this is needed ? Just to help me understand. The action code might lo; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00372.html (11,537 bytes)
18. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: bert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:39:41 +0100; * Patrick McHardy <41916F0B.5010809@xxxxxxxxx> 2004-11-10 02:29 I agree but this assumption is wrong, at least for u32. I agree that once this is true it would work perfectly fine, however I think it; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00373.html (10,696 bytes)
19. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: ick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:41:25 +1100; Well it's only going to happen once for each module so that's no big deal. -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://g; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00375.html (10,775 bytes)
20. Re: request_module while holding rtnl semaphore (score: 1): Author: <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:47:28 +0100; Thomas Graf wrote: * Patrick McHardy <41916F0B.5010809@xxxxxxxxx> 2004-11-10 02:29 Assuming all error-paths do proper cleanup, returning -EAGAIN should always result in the same configuration state a; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00376.html (10,990 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]