From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: PATCH net-next-2.6] linkwatch: linkwatch_forget_dev() to speedup device dismantle Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:26:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20091117.042604.99618154.davem@davemloft.net> References: <4B019381.2010509@gmail.com> <4B01C938.8000705@gmail.com> <20091116143917.14e4fa4f@s6510> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: shemminger@vyatta.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:35478 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751839AbZKQMZs (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:25:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091116143917.14e4fa4f@s6510> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:39:17 -0800 > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:50:48 +0100 > Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet > > Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger Is this really valid? The whole point in emitting the netif_carrier_off() is so that applications see the event in userspace and therefore can clean things up. Sure, the kernel will no longer make the device visible, and therefore the application can't operate on it any longer. But the application is deserved of receiving the event anyways so that it can clean up internal state and datastructures. It seem to me that in this ->stop() case we'll now elide the event emission, and I don't see how that can be right. Really, the link watch stuff is just due for a redesign. I don't think a simple hack is going to cut it this time, sorry Eric :-)