On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 11:08:43AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> carp(4), as a pseudo-interface, is always executed in the 'softnet'
> thread. Using splnet()/splx() might have been relevant when link-state
> handlers where directly executed from hardware interrupt handlers. But
> nowadays every
On 7 March 2017 at 11:08, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> carp(4), as a pseudo-interface, is always executed in the 'softnet'
> thread. Using splnet()/splx() might have been relevant when link-state
> handlers where directly executed from hardware interrupt handlers. But
> nowadays everything is run un
On 07/03/17(Tue) 11:08, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> carp(4), as a pseudo-interface, is always executed in the 'softnet'
> thread. Using splnet()/splx() might have been relevant when link-state
> handlers where directly executed from hardware interrupt handlers. But
> nowadays everything is run under
carp(4), as a pseudo-interface, is always executed in the 'softnet'
thread. Using splnet()/splx() might have been relevant when link-state
handlers where directly executed from hardware interrupt handlers. But
nowadays everything is run under the NET_LOCK() in a thread context, so
let's get rid o
