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

From: Werner Almesberger (wa@almesberger.net)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 19:56:24 EST

Next message: Alex Goddard: "Re: Coding standards. (Was: Re: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block)"
Previous message: Paul Mackerras: "Re: __user annotations"
In reply to: chas williams: "Re: [PATCH][ATM] use rtnl_{lock,unlock} during device operations (take 2)"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH][ATM] use rtnl_{lock,unlock} during device operations (take 2)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

chas williams wrote:
> really? if i remove my ethernet interface i expect all the
> connections to die.

They survive at least ifconfig down, then ifconfig up. I have
to do this often enough :-( I think there was a time (probably
long long ago), when downing the interface killed them
immediately.

- Werner

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________________
 / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina         wa@almesberger.net /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
-
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: Alex Goddard: "Re: Coding standards. (Was: Re: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block)"
Previous message: Paul Mackerras: "Re: __user annotations"
In reply to: chas williams: "Re: [PATCH][ATM] use rtnl_{lock,unlock} during device operations (take 2)"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH][ATM] use rtnl_{lock,unlock} during device operations (take 2)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:32 EST