[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1361464988.17413.6.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:43:08 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why is it not allowed to add a new socket protocol family as an
external module?
On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 09:47 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 07:39 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 18:44 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, there are a number of tables sized by NPROTO/AF_MAX/PF_MAX (and the
> >> fact that we use all three within the kernel is kind of sad) but there
> >> is no technical reason why we couldn't extend those dynamically if
> >> desired (with a linked list of additional protocols, perhaps).
> >>
> >> Hence my question--is the restriction for an ideological reason or
> >> simply because nobody thought it was worth the effort?
> >>
> >
> > I guess nobody did the preliminary work.
> >
> > lockdep might be the tricky part.
> >
> > net/core/sock.c:197:static const char *const af_family_key_strings[AF_MAX+1] = {
> > net/core/sock.c:211: "sk_lock-AF_NFC" , "sk_lock-AF_MAX"
> > net/core/sock.c:213:static const char *const af_family_slock_key_strings[AF_MAX+1] = {
> > net/core/sock.c:227: "slock-AF_NFC" , "slock-AF_MAX"
> > net/core/sock.c:229:static const char *const af_family_clock_key_strings[AF_MAX+1] = {
> > net/core/sock.c:243: "clock-AF_NFC" , "clock-AF_MAX"
> > net/core/sock.c:250:static struct lock_class_key af_callback_keys[AF_MAX];
>
> Unless I'm missing something that looks straightforward.
>
> When registering dynamically the new protocol would need to specify one
> string, the protocol name. ("AF_MYPROTOCOL" or something). The three
> key strings are derived from that.
>
> The three lock_class_key structs (corresponding to
> af_family_keys/af_family_slock_keys/af_callback_keys) can be
> auto-allocated by the network core at dynamic registration time.
Nope, this was the point I specifically raised but you missed it
Take a look at kernel/lockdep.c, lines 2981-2988
All the other stuff you mention seems pretty obvious.
--
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