At 2017-05-23 11:02:20, "David Miller" wrote:
>From: gfree.w...@vip.163.com
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 08:45:11 +0800
>
>> From: Gao Feng
>>
>> When the new RFS table size specified by sysctl equals the old one,
>> there is nothing changed actually. So it is unnecessary to reset the
>> RFS table en
From: gfree.w...@vip.163.com
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 08:45:11 +0800
> From: Gao Feng
>
> When the new RFS table size specified by sysctl equals the old one,
> there is nothing changed actually. So it is unnecessary to reset the
> RFS table entris.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng
It seems like an i
From: Gao Feng
When the new RFS table size specified by sysctl equals the old one,
there is nothing changed actually. So it is unnecessary to reset the
RFS table entris.
Signed-off-by: Gao Feng
---
net/core/sysctl_net_core.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --gi
