On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:53:56 -0500 (EST),
> Alan Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
> >The code below defines three new data structures: atomic_notifier_head,
> >blocking_notifier_head, and raw_notifier_head. The first two correspond
> >to what we had in the earlier patch, and raw_notifier_head is almost the
> >same as the current implementation, with no locking or protection at all.
>
> Acked-By: Keith Owens <[email protected]>
>
> I do not care how this problem is fixed, I am happy with any solution that
>
> (a) stops notify chains being racy and
> (b) allows users of notify_die() to be safely unloaded.
Andrew, I've been waiting to hear back about this. Was that latest
proposal (three separate types of notifier chains, each with its own API,
one of them being completely raw) acceptable?
Alan Stern
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
