Milan Kocián wrote:
ok, here is new version. Sign is in patch. Is it correct?
--- a/net/ipv4/fib_hash.c 2007-04-18 12:50:11.0 +0200
+++ b/net/ipv4/fib_hash.c 2007-04-19 10:21:04.267136960 +0200
[...]
Signed-off-by: Milan Kocian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks good, thanks.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:12:19 +0200
Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Milan Kocián wrote:
ok, here is new version. Sign is in patch. Is it correct?
--- a/net/ipv4/fib_hash.c 2007-04-18 12:50:11.0 +0200
+++ b/net/ipv4/fib_hash.c 2007-04-19 10:21:04.267136960 +0200
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:58 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
David Miller wrote:
From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:59:06 +0200
RTM_DELROUTE + RTM_NEWROUTE seem to be safer, although you're correct
that it might cause userspace to perform some action upon
Milan Kocián wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:58 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Milan, could you cook up another patch which uses NLM_F_REPLACE?
I can try it. Output is in patch below. Review carefully. I don't know
if it's best approach. It's tested and working without problem
(probably
David Miller wrote:
From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:59:06 +0200
RTM_DELROUTE + RTM_NEWROUTE seem to be safer, although you're correct
that it might cause userspace to perform some action upon receiving
the DELROUTE message since the update is non-atomic. So
From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:59:06 +0200
RTM_DELROUTE + RTM_NEWROUTE seem to be safer, although you're correct
that it might cause userspace to perform some action upon receiving
the DELROUTE message since the update is non-atomic. So I really don't
know,
Milan Kocián wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 20:19 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
I think having notifications for this case makes sense (IIRC I used
to use a similar patch some time ago, but can't find it right now).
But we need to indicate somehow that it is a replacement and not a
completely
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 20:19 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
I think having notifications for this case makes sense (IIRC I used
to use a similar patch some time ago, but can't find it right now).
But we need to indicate somehow that it is a replacement and not a
completely new route, either
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:37:01 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8320
Summary: replacing route in kernel doesn't send netlink message
Kernel Version: 2.6.20.6
Status: NEW
Severity: low
Owner: [EMAIL
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:37:01 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8320
Summary: replacing route in kernel doesn't send netlink message
Kernel Version: 2.6.20.6
Status: NEW
Severity: low
10 matches
Mail list logo
