On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:43:32AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> And stop messing with try_module_get on THIS_MODULE, which doesn't make
> any sense here.
The idea was to increase module count on /proc/drbd access.
If someone holds /proc/drbd open, previously rmmod would
"succeed" in starting
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:39:49AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Lars Ellenberg
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:40:23 +0200
excuse me for reordering the original:
> Anyways, back to the topic, can you please just relent and come to
> some kind of agreement about the fix for this a
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:09:53AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 09/05/2016 15:15, Lars Ellenberg a écrit :
> > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:40:20AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Maybe prefixing genl_magic_func.h and genl_magic_struct.h by 'drbd_'
&g
e interesting so that new module won't use it. What is your
> opinion?
This was supposed to not be DRBD specific. But it might even still
need some massaging before it was truly generic. And obviously,
it does not meet the taste of genetlink folks, to say the least :(
I don't care either way.
Lars Ellenberg
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:49:00PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 04/05/2016 11:05, Lars Ellenberg a écrit :
> [snip]
> > We don't have an "alignment problem" there, btw.
> > Last time I checked, we did work fine without this alignment magic,
> > we
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:05:56PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Lars Ellenberg
> Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:06:44 +0200
>
> > Please just NOT use an additional "field",
> > but always use 0 to pad.
>
> You can't, it doesn't work.
I did, and it
t always use 0 to pad.
Patch is much shorter as well, see below.
Attribute type "0" is not used,
and will never be of semantic value,
but always be ignored in the DRBD netlink family.
Whereas using some arbitrary value will be wrong,
and will needlessly break userland.
Thanks,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:54:27PM +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:06:10AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> >
> > This is the continuation (series #3) of the work done to align netlink
> > attributes when these attributes contain some 64-bit fields.
&
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:06:10AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>
> This is the continuation (series #3) of the work done to align netlink
> attributes when these attributes contain some 64-bit fields.
>
> It's the last patchset from what I've seen.
>
> The last user of nla_put_u64() is block/d
