Am Friday 24 April 2009 14:11:56 schrieb Herbert Xu:
> The patch you qouted has been superceded by many versions :)
Yes, I got lost in this mail thread...
> Can you please test the latest that's in davem's tree?
Done. With
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Fdavem%2Fnet-2.6.git;a=co
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:55:49AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am Thursday 16 April 2009 13:08:18 schrieb Herbert Xu:
>
> > Here's the patch. I'd appreciate if everyone can review it
> > and see if they can recreate the original race by
> >
> > 1) Starting a process using tun and polls
Am Thursday 16 April 2009 13:08:18 schrieb Herbert Xu:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:38:34PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > So how about this? We replace the dev destructor with our own that
> > doesn't immediately call free_netdev. We only call free_netdev once
> > all tun fd's attached to the
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:09:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> Does this work with TUN_PERSIST off?
> I haven't tested this, but won't unregister_netdev block forever
> waiting for device reference to become 0? Maybe you want
>
> + tun_put(tun);
> + if (!(tun->fla
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 08:09:23AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:57:45PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > This last bit seems to make a simple test using a non-persistent tap device
> > deadlock for me: we don't drop a reference acquired with __tun_get sock
> > unreg
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:57:45PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> This last bit seems to make a simple test using a non-persistent tap device
> deadlock for me: we don't drop a reference acquired with __tun_get sock
> unregister_netdevice blocks printing unregister_netdevice: waiting for tap0
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 01:08:18AM -, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:38:34PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > So how about this? We replace the dev destructor with our own that
> > doesn't immediately call free_netdev. We only call free_netdev once
> > all tun fd's attached to
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:38:34PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> So how about this? We replace the dev destructor with our own that
> doesn't immediately call free_netdev. We only call free_netdev once
> all tun fd's attached to the device have been closed.
Here's the patch. I'd appreciate if ev
