[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGsizzJZWjgLULpYiP6aqhEyke5sBsxOosTKda09F7beua_-rA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:40:04 +0100
From: Štefan Gula <steweg@...t.sk>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2, kernel version 3.2.1] net/ipv4/ip_gre: Ethernet
multipoint GRE over IP
Dňa 17. januára 2012 12:15, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> napísal/a:
> Le mardi 17 janvier 2012 à 12:00 +0100, Štefan Gula a écrit :
>
>> >
>> looks good... I am just wondering whether my previous question about
>> the placement of calls for ipgre_tap_bridge_init and
>> ipgre_tap_bridge_fini? Would it be also possible to have this
>> done/fixed when I migrate those inside the ipgre_init and ipgre_fini ?
>> I would like to have much rather identical parts of code with standard
>> bridge code just in case somebody would start doing generalization of
>> bridge code which can be then reused anywhere inside the kernel space
>> - simpler migration process later.
>
> Could you please stop claiming this is the same than bridge ?
>
> There is _one_ exit function per module (ipgre_fini in ip_gre)
>
> You wanted to destroy your kmem_cache only from this __exit function,
> not from the pernet exit function (ipgre_exit_net)
>
>
>
Ok, I will modify that, test that later today and if testing will be
successful, I will provide new version of this patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists