On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
However, the check dev->reg_state in netdev_destroy()
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> However, the check dev->reg_state in netdev_destroy() looks racy to
>>> me, as it could already be in NETREG_UNREGISTERED e
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> However, the check dev->reg_state in netdev_destroy() looks racy to
>> me, as it could already be in NETREG_UNREGISTERED even if we already
>> processed this device.
>
> you mean th
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar wro
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoito
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Pravin Shelar w
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Pravin Shelar wro
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>> wrote:
The combination of two commits
commit 8e4e1
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> The combination of two commits
>>>
>>> commit 8e4e1713e4
>>> ("openvswitch: Simplify datapath locking.")
>>>
>>> and
>
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> The combination of two commits
>>
>> commit 8e4e1713e4
>> ("openvswitch: Simplify datapath locking.")
>>
>> and
>>
>> commit 2537b4dd0a
>> ("openvswitch:: link upper device for port
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> The combination of two commits
>
> commit 8e4e1713e4
> ("openvswitch: Simplify datapath locking.")
>
> and
>
> commit 2537b4dd0a
> ("openvswitch:: link upper device for port devices")
>
> introduced a bug where upper_dev wasn't unlinked u
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> The combination of two commits
>
> commit 8e4e1713e4
> ("openvswitch: Simplify datapath locking.")
>
> and
>
> commit 2537b4dd0a
> ("openvswitch:: link upper device for port devices")
>
> introduced a bug where upper_dev wasn't unlinked u
The combination of two commits
commit 8e4e1713e4
("openvswitch: Simplify datapath locking.")
and
commit 2537b4dd0a
("openvswitch:: link upper device for port devices")
introduced a bug where upper_dev wasn't unlinked upon
netdev_unregister notification
The following steps:
modprobe openvswi
16 matches
Mail list logo