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 +
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 Wed, 2007-04-18 at 16:06 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 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 kno
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
> (pr
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 so
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-
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
> k
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
>>co
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, eith
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: l
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:
11 matches
Mail list logo