Alan Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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 subconciously hoping it'd go away, I guess.
> Was that latest
> proposal (three separate types of notifier chains, each with its own API,
> one of them being completely raw) acceptable?
Yes, it looks sane enough.
-
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]
