David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> diff -Nru a/net/core/dst.c b/net/core/dst.c
> --- a/net/core/dst.c 2004-06-13 06:04:49 -07:00
> +++ b/net/core/dst.c 2004-06-13 06:04:49 -07:00
> @@ -230,8 +230,8 @@
> if (event!=NETDEV_DOWN &&
> dst->output == dst_discard_out) {
This is a historical question. What's the dst->output check for?
> dst->dev = &loopback_dev;
> - dev_put(dev);
> dev_hold(&loopback_dev);
> + dev_put(dev);
> dst->output = dst_discard_out;
> if (dst->neighbour && dst->neighbour->dev == dev) {
> dst->neighbour->dev = &loopback_dev;
> @@ -242,6 +242,8 @@
> dst->input = dst_discard_in;
> dst->output = dst_discard_out;
> }
The loopback_dev stuff takes care of the case when someone is still
holding onto the dst. How come we don't have similar code in ifdown?
> + if (dst->ops->ifdown)
> + dst->ops->ifdown(dst, event != NETDEV_DOWN);
What's the rationale for doing this for both UNREGISTER and DOWN?
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
