Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote: >>I dont think I understand. Whats the problem with setting >>sch->parent on initialization instead on grafting as I did in >>my example patch? >>Please explain the problems arrising on unload in detail. > > > sch->parent is getting set on initialization, and for the root and > ingress qdiscs, it's left at zero. If I change that value, when the > root qdisc is unloaded and pfifo_fast is put back into place, the > qdisc_destroy() walks the tree and attempts to free memory from the > handle pointed at by sch->parent.
First of all, qdisc destruction never propagates up, only down the tree. Secondly neither qdisc_destroy nor pfifo nor prio even look at sch->parent. So this is completely wrong, the only place where sch->parent is used for walking through the tree is qdisc_tree_decrease_qlen. > It stops when sch->parent is NULL, Where are you getting this? sch->parent is an *integer*. > so > sch->parent is actually being set as intended. The only thing that > confused me is that nowhere in the qdisc is TC_H_ROOT included > explicitly, rather, the root qdisc is where sch->parent is NULL. > > So I misunderstood what was actually wrong. The qdisc code is ok as-is, > it's just that the top-level qdisc (root and ingress) have a sch->parent > of NULL, which is being set correctly today. > > Hope that clarifies. Not at all :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
