On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:23:46 +0100 "Jonathan Chambers`" <chamber_j@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am attempting to change the bridge kernel module so that I have complete > control over the port states from user space via sysfs. > > On code inspection I can see that whenever a reconfiguration of the bridge > itself is made, i.e. ageing time, forward delay, hello time, etc. then there > is a spin_lock_bh before the reconfiguration and a spin_unlock_bh after > reconfiguration. Yes, makes sense to lock those operations. Looks like a simple oversight. > However, when a reconfiguration of a bridge PORT is made e.g. path cost, > priority then the spin lock mechanism is not used. Is this correct > operation? (The old ioctl method uses spin locks on bridge port > reconfiguration, whereas I am reconfiguring via sysfs) > > If I am to change the bridge module to accept requests to change the port > state should I be using the spin locks? > > Thanks in advance > > Jon Chambers. > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here. > http://messenger.msn.co.uk > -- Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger
