Ah yes, now I see. There is no mutex on struct ifnet then? And I suppose
those splimp/splx calls should remain. I'll look at whats available and
relay my findings to you guys.
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 17:14, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > Here, I pushed that section of code up before the pri
Here, I pushed that section of code up before the prior
mtx_unlock(&tp->tap_mtx) above it, then removed the splimp/splx calls.
Is this what you were referring to (attached)? Also, I noticed splx and
splimp are called in a number of other places in this driver, even under
-CURRENT. You want those ou
Seems to work in both -RELEASE and -CURRENT, though I needed to manually
apply the patch as line numbers were off in -RELEASE. I can see how the
locking could become a problem in -CURRENT.
On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 05:23, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 10:06:17AM +0300, Alex Lyashkov wrot
Hello,
Here, I pushed that section of code up before the prior
mtx_unlock(&tp->tap_mtx) above it, then removed the splimp/splx
calls. Is this what you were referring to (attached)? Also, I noticed
splx and splimp are called in a number of other places in this
driver, even under -CURRENT. You want
That patch seems to have fixed it. It seemed strange that setting an
inet address to the interface set it running, however setting the inet6
does not do this. It is possible this behavior affacts other interface
types as well?
On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 18:07, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
> > 2) Is there a
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 05:50:04PM -0400, Coleman Kane wrote:
> Hi, I have been having some trouble working with getting tapN network
> interfaces into the 'RUNNING' state. I have been trying to figure out
> how to set the RUNNING flag on an interface, which is needed before
> the kernel will actua
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 10:06:17AM +0300, Alex Lyashkov wrote:
>
> not better move this under tp->tap_mtx mutex without using splX
> functions?
...especially taking into account that splX do nothing
in CURRENT anyway. Mutex locking framework adopted by
the interface driver should be used of cours
В Сбт, 07.08.2004, в 01:07, Maksim Yevmenkin пишет:
> > 2) Is there a way to set this interface flag without assigning an IPv4
> > address (or any address for that matter) first?
> >
> > Mainly for number two, I would like to be able to run interfaces
> > bridged together without having to also gi
2) Is there a way to set this interface flag without assigning an IPv4
address (or any address for that matter) first?
Mainly for number two, I would like to be able to run interfaces
bridged together without having to also give all of them addresses.
please try the attached (untested!) patch. it
Hi, I have been having some trouble working with getting tapN network
interfaces into the 'RUNNING' state. I have been trying to figure out
how to set the RUNNING flag on an interface, which is needed before
the kernel will actually begin sending packets from said network
interface. So far, the onl
10 matches
Mail list logo
