From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 01:42:48 +0200
> The only other user of proto_list besides proto_register, which
> doesn't care, are the seqfs functions. They use the slab pointer,
> but in a harmless way:
>
> proto->slab == NULL ? "no" : "yes"
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 01:02:01 +0200
You're right, good catch. This patch fixes it by moving the lock
down to the list-operation which it is supposed to protect.
I think we need to unlink from the list first if you're
going t
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 01:02:01 +0200
> You're right, good catch. This patch fixes it by moving the lock
> down to the list-operation which it is supposed to protect.
I think we need to unlink from the list first if you're
going to do it this way. Otherw
Daniele Orlandi wrote:
I'm looking at proto_unregister() in linux-2.6.13:
Il calls kmem_cache_destroy() while holding proto_list_lock:
void proto_unregister(struct proto *prot)
{
write_lock(&proto_list_lock);
if (prot->slab != NULL) {
kmem_cache_destroy(prot->sl
