From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:41:48 -0800
> David Miller <[email protected]> writes: > > > From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) > > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:49:04 -0800 > > > >> @@ -249,6 +253,19 @@ static int veth_close(struct net_device *dev) > >> return 0; > >> } > >> > >> +static int is_valid_veth_mtu(int new_mtu) > >> +{ > >> + return (new_mtu >= MIN_MTU && new_mtu <= MAX_MTU); > >> +} > >> + > >> +static int veth_change_mtu(struct net_device *dev, int new_mtu) > >> +{ > >> + if (is_valid_veth_mtu(new_mtu)) > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + dev->mtu = new_mtu; > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> + > > > > This validity test seems to be reversed? > > Crap. You are correct. I will respin. Please test your patches. This one obviously didn't get even one single "ifconfig x mtu y" type test. It would have failed on any in-range value. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
