From: Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:22:49 +0400
> Oops. You're right here :( I looked at the ip6_fl_lock
> and messed it with the ip6_sk_fl_lock.
>
> Should I resend the whole patch, or just make an
> incremental one?
Please make an incremental one.
And hurry, I
David Miller wrote:
> From: Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:53:52 +0400
>
>> This routine scans the ipv6_fl_list whose update is
>> protected with the socket lock and the ip6_sk_fl_lock.
>>
>> Since the socket lock is not taken in the lookup, use
>> the other one.
>
From: Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:53:52 +0400
> This routine scans the ipv6_fl_list whose update is
> protected with the socket lock and the ip6_sk_fl_lock.
>
> Since the socket lock is not taken in the lookup, use
> the other one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emely
From: Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:11:58 +0400
> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:53:52 +0400), Pavel
> > Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> >
> >> This routine scans the ipv6_fl_list whose update is
> >> prot
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:53:52 +0400), Pavel
> Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
>> This routine scans the ipv6_fl_list whose update is
>> protected with the socket lock and the ip6_sk_fl_lock.
>
>> struct ip6_flowlabel *f
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:53:52 +0400), Pavel
Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> This routine scans the ipv6_fl_list whose update is
> protected with the socket lock and the ip6_sk_fl_lock.
> struct ip6_flowlabel *fl = sfl->fl;
> if (fl
This routine scans the ipv6_fl_list whose update is
protected with the socket lock and the ip6_sk_fl_lock.
Since the socket lock is not taken in the lookup, use
the other one.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_flowlabel.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_flowlabel.c
