On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:49:06AM +0200, Julian Anastasov wrote:
...
> No, simply the last change in 2.6.24 is wrong to assume
> duplication is evident in fib_info reference counter. And such check
> is only on ip route replace/change. I'm appending brief FIB information
> for your referenc
Hello,
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> But comment#3 is "ambiguous"... It looks like you don't want to show
> us too much... So, apparently you change the route, but it seems this
> route exists; you have this:
> 10.0.0.0/8 dev eth0 scope link
> but probably also someth
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:11:26AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> But comment#3 is "ambiguous"... It looks like you don't want to show
> us too much... So, apparently you change the route, but it seems this
> route exists; you have this:
> 10.0.0.0/8 dev eth0 scope link
> but probably also
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:19:34PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing
> > > should be done with 'ip route cha
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing
> > should be done with 'ip route change' (but I didn't check if 2.6.24
> > knows about this...).
>
> $ man ip
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:10:10PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> [...] so old thing is always supposed to be
> destroyed (of course it's a matter of implementation or conditions in
> which moment this destruction takes place).
>
> So, 'replace with itself' is simply ambiguous: we can always
Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing
> should be done with 'ip route change' (but I didn't check if 2.6.24
> knows about this...).
$ man ip
[...]
ip route add - add new route
ip route change - change route
ip
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:40:36PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> > 2008/1/26, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > But whatever. It used to work. People's scripts will break.
> > > Regression.
> > >
> >
> > Also I tho
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:20:26PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
...
> That's not a very good analogy - the source is a kernel object. A better
> example would be:
>
> linux-2.6.24-rc8:
>
> echo foo > /tmp/1
> echo bar > /tmp/2
> echo foo > /tmp/1
>
> linux-2.6.24:
>
> echo foo > /tmp/1
> echo b
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> 2008/1/26, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > But whatever. It used to work. People's scripts will break. Regression.
> >
>
> Also I thought that 'replace with itself' should be error as like Jarek.
> But it used to work a
2008/1/26, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> But whatever. It used to work. People's scripts will break. Regression.
>
Also I thought that 'replace with itself' should be error as like Jarek.
But it used to work and patch made a regression, it's my bad :(
I think Julian's recent patches
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:11:57 +0100 Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote, On 01/25/2008 11:26 PM:
>
> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:23:49 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9816
>
> ...
>
> > I'd agree with Andrea: replac
Andrew Morton wrote, On 01/25/2008 11:26 PM:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:23:49 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9816
...
> I'd agree with Andrea: replacing a route with itself a) used to work and b)
> should still work (surely)?
...on the other ha
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:23:49 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9816
>
>Summary: cannot replace route
>Product: Networking
>Version: 2.5
> KernelVersion: 2.6.24
> Platform: All
> OS/Version:
14 matches
Mail list logo
