Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Sat Jan 04 2003 - 01:09:41 EST

Next message: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net: "RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?"
Previous message: Stephen Rothwell: "Re: [PATCH][COMPAT] move struct flock32 3/8 sparc64"
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface"
Next in thread: Kronos: "Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface"
Reply: Kronos: "Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In message <1041583024.8648.11.camel@rth.ninka.net> you write:
> On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 21:10, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Hmm, I thought the sched stuff all runs under the network brlock? If
> > so, it doesn't need to be held in, since it's not preemptible.
>
> The packet schedulers transmit, not receive.
> They have their own queue locking, along with the device
> xmit lock.

Then the patch to mark the "owner" should be straightforward. I
haven't looked at kronos's patch in detail, though.

Rusty.

--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net: "RE: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?"
Previous message: Stephen Rothwell: "Re: [PATCH][COMPAT] move struct flock32 3/8 sparc64"
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface"
Next in thread: Kronos: "Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface"
Reply: Kronos: "Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 22:00:24 EST