"Denis V. Lunev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>> Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>>>>>> The patch attached should help. The idea is simple. The "init" should be
>>>>>> called only once without NETNS. Period. No need for any lists.
>>>>> This is the kind of idea I had but I didn't think it could be
>>>>> that simple. :)
>>>>> Thanks Denis.
>>>> It isn't.
>
> this will work due to INIT_LIST_HEAD with circles list to itself and a
> del operation will work.
Suppose I have this fragment of code in a module:
> static int __net_init xt_net_init(struct net *net)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> static void __net_exit xt_net_exit(struct net *net)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> static struct pernet_operations __net_initdata xt_net_ops = {
> .init = xt_net_init,
> .exit = xt_net_exit,
> };
>
> static int __init xt_init(void)
> {
> return register_pernet_subsys(&xt_net_ops);
> }
>
> static void __exit xt_fini(void)
> {
> unregister_pernet_subsys(&xt_net_ops);
> }
>
> module_init(xt_init);
> module_exit(xt_fini);
What happens during module removal when unregister_pernet_subys calls
xt_net_ops.exit after xt_net_ops has been removed from the kernels
memory?
> By the way, I think that we can in the case of undefined CONFIG_NET_NS
> reduce register to calling ->init method and unregister to calling
> ->exit method.
>
> This is a correct thing at least for now and will be welcomed by the all
> embedded/etc people.
I'm not fundamentally opposed. Earlier versions of my patchset
did that and more. However I think the pain is greater then the
gain right now. Especially since this concept seem to require
having quality inspected into it.
Eric
-
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
