>> static struct netpoll np = {
>> > .name = "netconsole",
>> > .dev_name = "eth0",
>> > @@ -69,23 +84,91 @@ static struct netpoll np = {
>> > .drop = netpoll_queue,
>> > };
>
> Shouldn't this piece get dropped in this patch?
>
This piece isn't in -mm tree, but this piece is in 2.6.19.
Which version should I follow ?
>> -static int configured = 0;
>> +static int add_netcon_dev(const char* target_opt)
>> +{
>> + static atomic_t netcon_dev_count = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>
> Hiding this inside a function seems wrong. Why do we need a count? If
> we've already got a spinlock, why does it need to be atomic?
>
We don't have a spinlock for add_netcon_dev, because we don't need
to get a spinlock for add_netcon_dev except for list operation.
So, it must be atomic.
>> local_irq_save(flags);
>> + spin_lock(&netconsole_dev_list_lock);
>> for(left = len; left; ) {
>> frag = min(left, MAX_PRINT_CHUNK);
>> - netpoll_send_udp(&np, msg, frag);
>> + list_for_each_entry(dev, &active_netconsole_dev, list) {
>> + spin_lock(&dev->netpoll_lock);
>> + netpoll_send_udp(&dev->np, msg, frag);
>> + spin_unlock(&dev->netpoll_lock);
>
> Why do we need a lock here? Why isn't the list lock sufficient? What
> happens if either lock is held when we get here?
>
The netpoll_lock is for each structure containing information related to netpoll
(remote IP address and port, local IP address and port and so on).
If we don't take a spinlock for each structure, the target IP address and port
number are subject to change on the way sending packets.
--
Keiichi KII
NEC Corporation OSS Promotion Center
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
