[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263252108.29868.4774.camel@calx>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:21:48 -0600
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <danborkmann@...glemail.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jmoyer@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netpoll: allow execution of multiple rx_hooks per
interface
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 01:20 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
> >> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:54:05 -0600
> >>
> >>> Please inline patches so they can be reviewed easily in reply.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - struct netpoll *np = npi->rx_np;
> >>> + struct netpoll **np = &npi->rx_np;
> >>>
> >>> - if (!np)
> >>> + if (!(*np))
> >>>
> >>> This makes everything horrible. Can you avoid the double indirection?
> >>> Using a list head might be a good answer.
> >>>
> >> Agreed on all counts.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed on the double indirection, I'll fix it.
> >
> > I've already considered the list_head structure, but then I was the opinion
> > that a double linked list might not be necessary for this, so I did it that
> > way ... (compare: kernel notifier by Alan Cox). If you insist on that I'll
> > fix it of course ;)
>
> So, here's the list head implementation. Tested on both of my machines with several
> rx_hook clients.
Looks pretty good. Dave?
Acked-by: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
--
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists