[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50071D11.7080207@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:31:13 -0700
From: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: mark.d.rustad@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
gaofeng@...fujitsu.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Statically initialize init_net.dev_base_head
On 7/18/2012 1:21 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:20:10PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
>> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:11:49 -0400
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:06:07PM -0700, Mark Rustad wrote:
>>>> This change eliminates an initialization-order hazard most
>>>> recently seen when netprio_cgroup is built into the kernel.
>>>>
>>>> With thanks to Eric Dumazet for catching a bug.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
>> ...
>>> I think dave was going to take John Fastabends patch from earlier today, but
>>> this works just as well. Long term I'm going to look into delaying
>>> initzlization for cgroups, as it creates a strange initialization state when you
>>> have a module_init routine registered.
>>
>> Neil, any particular preference between John's and Mark's version
>> of the fix?
>>
> I think they're both perfectly good. If I had to choose I'd say Marks, just
> because its done by initializing data, rather than adding more code to run every
> time we create a cgroup.
>
> Neil
>
Fine by me if we take this version instead.
--
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