Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:18:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:18:38 -0500 Received: from thalia.fm.intel.com ([132.233.247.11]:39951 "EHLO thalia.fm.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:18:24 -0500 Message-ID: <07E6E3B8C072D211AC4100A0C9C5758302B27092@hasmsx52.iil.intel.com> From: "Hen, Shmulik" To: "'Jeff Garzik'" Cc: "'LNML'" , "'LKML'" , netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: RE: catch 22 - porting net driver from 2.2 to 2.4 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:18:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Where can I find info about that ? My first idea was to fire a timer and let the callback routine do the work, but I worry about synchronization and about passing the list of items for it to handle. What is the accepted way of starting a kernel thread and how do I handle parameters and sync. ? Thanks, Shmulik. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 7:37 PM To: Hen, Shmulik Cc: 'LNML'; 'LKML'; netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: catch 22 - porting net driver from 2.2 to 2.4 do_ioctl is inside rtnl_lock... Remember if you need to alter the rules, you can always queue work in the current context, and have a kernel thread handle the work. The nice thing about a kernel thread is that you start with a [almost] clean state, when it comes to locks. Jeff -- Jeff Garzik | Building 1024 | Would you like a Twinkie? MandrakeSoft | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/