On 15/6/07 17:22, "Kieran Mansley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The lock protects the use_count variable.
Yes, that's one thing I noticed -- can you use atomic_t for reference counts
and hence reduce the number of times you need to lock/unlock? At least the
open-coded lock-decrement-test-maybe-fr
On 15/6/07 13:21, "Michael Buesch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> True in general, but not the cases I've seen in this patchset, where 'foo'
>> is a predicate.
>
> Ok, if foo is a variable containing an error code, it's
> better to return that error code. I assumed that foo is a
> variable cont
On 15/6/07 13:11, "Michael Buesch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No use of the following please:
>> If (foo) return 1; else return 0;
>> Is clearer as:
>> Return foo;
>
> But it's not the same.
> return !!foo;
> would be the same. And yes, it does matter:
True in general, but not the cases I'
On 15/6/07 11:46, "Kieran Mansley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a repost of some earlier patches to the xen-devel mailing list,
> with a number of changes thanks to some useful suggestions from others.
The coding style needs fixing in various ways.
Hard tabs need to be used, no spaces in
On 22/5/07 13:44, "Kieran Mansley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Eagerly zap the function pointers, then wait one RCU period so every CPU
>> goes through a quiescent point before unloading the module?
>>
>> -- Keir
>
> Am I right in thinking that if one of the functions that was protected
> by
On 22/5/07 08:28, "Kieran Mansley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 08:15 +0100, Kieran Mansley wrote:
>> RCU on its own wouldn't
>> prevent the accelerated plugin being unloaded while netfront was using
>> one of the hooks.
>
> Hmm, actually I think it could be used to do th
On 2/3/07 01:30, "Stephen Hemminger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> What about implementing the unused arp_announce flag on the inetdevice?
> Something like the following. Totally untested...
>
> Looks like it either was there (and got removed) or was planned but
> never implemented.
This would b
On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:27, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Hmmm maybe it's me, but something bugs me if a NIC driver is going to
send IP level ARP packets... that just feels very very wrong and is a
blatant layering violation shouldn't the ifup/ifconfig scripts just
be fixed instead if this is criti
On 11 May 2006, at 01:33, Herbert Xu wrote:
But if sampling virtual events for randomness is really unsafe (is it
really?) then native guests in Xen would also get bad random numbers
and this would need to be somehow addressed.
Good point. I wonder what VMWare does in this situation.
Well,
On 10 May 2006, at 00:51, Chris Wright wrote:
* Herbert Xu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ netdev->features= NETIF_F_IP_CSUM;
Any reason why IP_CSUM was chosen instead of HW_CSUM? Doing the latter
would seem to be in fact easier for a virt
On 9 May 2006, at 21:25, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
+ memcpy(netdev->dev_addr, info->mac, ETH_ALEN);
+ network_connect(netdev);
+ info->irq = bind_evtchn_to_irqhandler(
+ info->evtchn, netif_int, SA_SAMPLE_RANDOM,
netdev->name,
This doesn't look like a real rand
11 matches
Mail list logo
