Message-Id: <200306070046.h570kBsG003360@ginger.cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
To: Werner Almesberger <wa@almesberger.net>
cc: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@sfgoth.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][ATM] use rtnl_{lock,unlock} during device operations (take 2) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:19:06 -0300."
             <20030606201906.F3232@almesberger.net> 
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:44:22 -0400
From: chas williams <chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1009
Lines: 21

In message <20030606201906.F3232@almesberger.net>,Werner Almesberger writes:
>Naw, it isn't supposed to do that :-) I wonder if anyone
>actually made functional changes to atmsigd (or qgen ;-) since
>I last touched it ...

we (in particualr ekinize) added point to multipoint signalling.
its mostly handled in user space (atmsigd).  some changes will be
needed when we support vbr. 

>But yes, with a unified VCC table, it certainly makes sense to
>add a hash to validate those pointers. I still think that using
>pointers per se is a good idea, because they're naturally
>unique numbers. Given that a VCC can be in all kinds of states,

at that point we would probably just fix it to use the netlink
interface (or whatever is going to be the acceptable interface)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/