If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an
existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail.
I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the KERNEL_LOCK when cloning an entry
but I'd prefer the ARP layer to not try to delete anything in the hot
path.
If you entered a
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:44:15AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an
> existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail.
>
> I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the KERNEL_LOCK when cloning an entry
> but I'd prefer the
On 2015/12/02 09:44, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an
> existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail.
>
> I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the KERNEL_LOCK when cloning an entry
> but I'd prefer the ARP layer to not try
On 02/12/15(Wed) 09:26, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/12/02 09:44, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an
> > existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail.
> >
> > I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the KERNEL_LOCK when
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:26:35AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/12/02 09:44, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an
> > existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail.
> >
> > I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the