From: Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:12:14 +
> There might be practical considerations along the lines of "we want
> lookups for loopback to be fast"...
We have that taken care of, it's called "&loopback_dev".
None of the performance-caring paths do dev_get_by_name("lo
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:41:25 -0800
> But what if other network device is not a module. We want loopback
> to be first. so it needs to be before other device_initcall's
That's not happening today, so it's "broken" today, which suggests
that the order
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:41:25 -0800
> But what if other network device is not a module. We want loopback
> to be first. so it needs to be before other device_initcall's
There is zero evidence that loopback must be first.
I was not able to provide any
From: Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:18:48 +0100
> Not really, the device management inits as subsys, the ip layer hooks
> into fs_initcall() which comes right after. The loopback was actually
> registered after the protocol so far. I think Adrian's patch is fine
> if th
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:31:28 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-14 00:12
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:01:43PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > Loopback should be there
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-14 00:12
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:01:43PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > Loopback should be there before protocols are started. It makes sense
> > > to have a standard startup order
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-14 00:12
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:01:43PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Loopback should be there before protocols are started. It makes sense
> > to have a standard startup order.
>
> This actually becomes easier after my patch:
>
> Now that it'
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:01:43PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:49:33 +0100
> Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-13 20:12
> > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:17:56PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure whether tha
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:49:33 +0100
Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-13 20:12
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:17:56PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > I'm not sure whether that is important any longer. It probably isn't,
> > > but we should verify it be
* Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-13 20:12
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:17:56PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether that is important any longer. It probably isn't,
> > but we should verify it before applying such a patch.
>
> There might be practical considerations along the
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:17:56PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:24:35 +0100
>
> > This patch converts drivers/net/loopback.c to using module_init().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'm not %100 sure of t
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 11:08:01AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:17:56 -0800 (PST)
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:24:35 +0100
> >
> > > This patch converts drivers/net/loopback.c to usi
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:17:56 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:24:35 +0100
>
> > This patch converts drivers/net/loopback.c to using module_init().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-12-13 14:40
> Additionally:
> - it works for me (but my e100 is always initialized before loop)
> - I didn't spot any obvious interdependency with the other Space.c
> drivers
>
> It could be I missed anything, but I don't see any better way to verify
> thi
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:17:56PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:24:35 +0100
>
> > This patch converts drivers/net/loopback.c to using module_init().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'm not %100 sure of t
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:24:35 +0100
> This patch converts drivers/net/loopback.c to using module_init().
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm not %100 sure of this one, let's look at the comment you
are deleting:
> -/*
> - * The loopba
This patch converts drivers/net/loopback.c to using module_init().
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/net/Space.c| 11 ---
drivers/net/loopback.c |4 +++-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
--- linux-2.6.19-mm1/drivers/net/loopback.c.old
17 matches
Mail list logo
