[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120718.133243.1384365436939730847.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: john.r.fastabend@...el.com
Cc: nhorman@...driver.com, 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
From: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:31:13 -0700
> 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.
I think that's what I'll do, sorry for all the trouble John :)
--
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