On 06/11/2015 08:05 AM, Hajime Tazaki wrote:
At Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:57:25 -0500,
Josh Hunt wrote:
Dave
Can you please revert this change?
commit 0243508edd317ff1fa63b495643a7c192fbfcd92
Author: Josh Hunt
Date: Mon Jun 8 12:00:59 2015 -0400
ipv6: Fix protocol resubmission
Let me kn
At Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:57:25 -0500,
Josh Hunt wrote:
> Dave
>
> Can you please revert this change?
>
> commit 0243508edd317ff1fa63b495643a7c192fbfcd92
> Author: Josh Hunt
> Date: Mon Jun 8 12:00:59 2015 -0400
>
> ipv6: Fix protocol resubmission
>
> Let me know if you need a patch to d
From: Josh Hunt
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:57:25 -0500
> Can you please revert this change?
>
> commit 0243508edd317ff1fa63b495643a7c192fbfcd92
> Author: Josh Hunt
> Date: Mon Jun 8 12:00:59 2015 -0400
>
> ipv6: Fix protocol resubmission
Done, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: se
On 06/10/2015 10:16 AM, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
Hi,
Josh Hunt wrote:
On 06/09/2015 11:24 PM, Hajime Tazaki wrote:
Hello Josh, Dave,
my mobile ipv6 test on libos failed with this commit.
This commit makes a destination option header handling (i.e.,
ipprot->handler == ipv6_destopt_rcv) faile
On 06/10/2015 10:23 AM, Josh Hunt wrote:
On 06/10/2015 10:16 AM, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
Hi,
Josh Hunt wrote:
Hajime
Thanks for the report. I mentioned in an earlier post this might be a
problem.
Dave, what if we restore the old behavior, but add a new label to
handle the case where the d
Hi,
Josh Hunt wrote:
> On 06/09/2015 11:24 PM, Hajime Tazaki wrote:
>>
>> Hello Josh, Dave,
>>
>> my mobile ipv6 test on libos failed with this commit.
>>
>> This commit makes a destination option header handling (i.e.,
>> ipprot->handler == ipv6_destopt_rcv) failed since
>> ipv6_destopt_rcv() see
On 06/10/2015 10:16 AM, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
Hi,
Josh Hunt wrote:
Hajime
Thanks for the report. I mentioned in an earlier post this might be a problem.
Dave, what if we restore the old behavior, but add a new label to handle the
case where the decapsulating protocol returns the nexthdr
On 06/09/2015 11:24 PM, Hajime Tazaki wrote:
Hello Josh, Dave,
my mobile ipv6 test on libos failed with this commit.
This commit makes a destination option header handling (i.e.,
ipprot->handler == ipv6_destopt_rcv) failed since
ipv6_destopt_rcv() seems to return a positive value to
indicate t
Hi,
Hajime Tazaki wrote:
>
> Hello Josh, Dave,
>
> my mobile ipv6 test on libos failed with this commit.
>
> This commit makes a destination option header handling (i.e.,
> ipprot->handler == ipv6_destopt_rcv) failed since
> ipv6_destopt_rcv() seems to return a positive value to
> indicate to g
Hello Josh, Dave,
my mobile ipv6 test on libos failed with this commit.
This commit makes a destination option header handling (i.e.,
ipprot->handler == ipv6_destopt_rcv) failed since
ipv6_destopt_rcv() seems to return a positive value to
indicate to goto resubmission label.
I will look for mor
From: Josh Hunt
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 12:00:59 -0400
> UDP encapsulation is broken on IPv6. This is because the logic to resubmit
> the nexthdr is inverted, checking for a ret value > 0 instead of < 0. Also,
> the resubmit label is in the wrong position since we already get the
> nexthdr value w
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Josh Hunt wrote:
> UDP encapsulation is broken on IPv6. This is because the logic to resubmit
> the nexthdr is inverted, checking for a ret value > 0 instead of < 0. Also,
> the resubmit label is in the wrong position since we already get the
> nexthdr value when pe
UDP encapsulation is broken on IPv6. This is because the logic to resubmit
the nexthdr is inverted, checking for a ret value > 0 instead of < 0. Also,
the resubmit label is in the wrong position since we already get the
nexthdr value when performing decapsulation. In addition the skb pull is no
lon
13 matches
Mail list logo
