From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:23:43 +0100
> We are going to convert 99% timers to deferrable.
>
> Maybe the right move should be to have the reverse attribute, to
> mark a timer as non deferrable...
I think we are still in a learning process about what
exactly
On Dec 20, 2007 12:10 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thinking about it more, this looks like a case for just using round_jiffies().
> The GC timer needs to run to clean up under DoS attack, and deferring it
> probably
> isn't a good idea.
But what are the chances that a DoSed
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:23:43 +0100
Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> > The neighbor GC timer runs once a second, but it doesn't need to wake
> > up the machine.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
The neighbor GC timer runs once a second, but it doesn't need to wake
up the machine.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- a/net/core/neighbour.c 2007-12-18 07:46:07.0 -0800
+++ b/net/core/neighbour.c 2007-12-18 07:47:36.
The neighbor GC timer runs once a second, but it doesn't need to wake
up the machine.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- a/net/core/neighbour.c 2007-12-18 07:46:07.0 -0800
+++ b/net/core/neighbour.c 2007-12-18 07:47:36.0 -0800
@@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ st
