On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:41:54PM -0700, David Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > There is no problem as-is, but I implement unified cache for different
> > sockets (currently tcp/udp/raw and netlink are supported), which does
> > not use that table, so I currently wrap all access code into sp
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:58:47 +0300
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:54:45AM +0100, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > We would already do that on init.
> > > Some things become very confused, when nl_table is no
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:54:45AM +0100, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > We would already do that on init.
> > Some things become very confused, when nl_table is not used to store
> > netlink sockets.
>
>
> Its unnecessary, but I don't understand what th
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> We would already do that on init.
> Some things become very confused, when nl_table is not used to store
> netlink sockets.
Its unnecessary, but I don't understand what the problem is.
Why would it be NULL and what gets confused?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send th
We would already do that on init.
Some things become very confused, when nl_table is not used to store
netlink sockets.
Signed-off-by: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23ebdcf1f439cde050a63f33897d5b099fe08c95
diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
index 9b69d9b..071e
