Re: [PATCH][ATM] use rtnl_{lock,unlock} during device operations (take 2)

From: Werner Almesberger (
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 10:54:16 EST

David S. Miller wrote:
> It's more like an IP tunnel and a route, granted.

Even with the route, the destination can remain "fixed".
The VCC only makes sense in the context of the device, which
is fully visible to the user. (It's different in the case of
SVCs, but they're managed by a user space demon. Besides, if
their device goes away, they die too.)

> And those are
> similarly configured, and to me the same rules apply.

Why do you care ? That part of the current design is
technically adequate and reasonably simple. Littering the
code with asynchronous code paths would only make it more

(If you want to keep Chas busy, the communication between
the kernel and its demons may be a much more interesting
topic ;-)

- Werner

 / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina /
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:30 EST