On 18.01.2018 20:43, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 09:32:08PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> there is the second version of patchset introducing net_sem
>> instead of net_mutex. The patchset adds net_sem in addition
>> to net_mutex and allows pernet_operations to be async.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 09:32:08PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there is the second version of patchset introducing net_sem
> instead of net_mutex. The patchset adds net_sem in addition
> to net_mutex and allows pernet_operations to be async. This
> flag means, the pernet_operations method
On 04.12.2017 19:10, David Miller wrote:
> From: Kirill Tkhai
> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:54:51 +0300
>
>> Still no comments :(
>>
>> Ping, ping, ping.
>
> You cannot force people to prioritize reviewing your patch submission.
>
> Screaming "ping ping ping" doesn't help, in fact is hinders.
>
>
From: Kirill Tkhai
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:54:51 +0300
> Still no comments :(
>
> Ping, ping, ping.
You cannot force people to prioritize reviewing your patch submission.
Screaming "ping ping ping" doesn't help, in fact is hinders.
> What will we do next?
Be patient.
Still no comments :(
Ping, ping, ping.
Here is the second version of big patch set with Eric's commentaries accounted.
What will we do next?
On 20.11.2017 21:32, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there is the second version of patchset introducing net_sem
> instead of net_mutex. The patchset adds
Hi,
there is the second version of patchset introducing net_sem
instead of net_mutex. The patchset adds net_sem in addition
to net_mutex and allows pernet_operations to be async. This
flag means, the pernet_operations methods are safe to be
executed with any othor pernet_operations (un)initializin
6 matches
Mail list logo