From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [BUG] net_cls: Panic occured when net_cls subsystem use Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:58:13 -0400 Message-ID: <1244635093.4186.12.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> References: <20090603112746.GA7000@ff.dom.local> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Minoru Usui , netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.24]:43675 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753275AbZFJL7Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:59:25 -0400 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so460625qwd.37 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:59:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090603112746.GA7000@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Apologies for the latency. On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 11:27 +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > After the second look I have some questions: > - if it's really aimed to skip checking by ->get() tp's before they're > configured in ->change(), maybe instead of using tp_c to check this it > would be simpler to generally skip calling ->get() for newly created > tp's? > - otherwise the current method probably needs adding a tp_c check for > NULL in u32_destroy()? > - it seems this method would also need adding a 'handle' lookup to > the u32_change(); otherwise its 'handle' parameter isn't controlled > for for uniqueness, unless I miss something? Lets just ignore the need for these changes since the patch fixes them for now. I would still like to make the changes i suggested but later with more thought put into them. cheers, jamal