From: Robert Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:29:04 +0200
> Paul E. McKenney writes:
>
> > Those of use who dive into networking only occasionally would much
> > appreciate this. ;-)
>
> No problem here...
>
> Cheers
> --ro
>
> Ac
Paul E. McKenney writes:
> Those of use who dive into networking only occasionally would much
> appreciate this. ;-)
No problem here...
Cheers
--ro
Acked-by: Robert Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (bu
Paul E. McKenney writes:
> > We have two users of trie_leaf_remove, fn_trie_flush and fn_trie_delete
> > both are holding RTNL. So there shouldn't be need for this preempt stuff.
> > This is assumed to a leftover from an older RCU-take.
>
> True enough! One request -- would it be reasona
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Robert Olsson wrote:
>
> Hello, Just discussed this Patrick...
>
> We have two users of trie_leaf_remove, fn_trie_flush and fn_trie_delete
> both are holding RTNL. So there shouldn't be need for this preempt stuff.
> This is assumed to a leftover from a
From: Robert Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:38:31 +0100
>
> Hello, Just discussed this Patrick...
>
> We have two users of trie_leaf_remove, fn_trie_flush and fn_trie_delete
> both are holding RTNL. So there shouldn't be need for this preempt stuff.
> This is assumed to a
Hello, Just discussed this Patrick...
We have two users of trie_leaf_remove, fn_trie_flush and fn_trie_delete
both are holding RTNL. So there shouldn't be need for this preempt stuff.
This is assumed to a leftover from an older RCU-take.
> Mhh .. I think I just remembered something - me incorr
