On Tuesday 13 March 2007 15:31, Andi Kleen wrote: > Ok. When you do such changes you should always add a comment, otherwise > it will be always destroyed with the next change. > > But it seems highly fragile to me anyways because it depends on the exact > value of RTAX_MAX which tends to change regularly when someone invents > a new attribute. You should probably have moved next out of the dst entry.
Not an option, unfortunately. But yes, a comment is needed. (Before my february patches, the 'next' pointer was forced to be the first field of dst). > > Anyways here's a new patch with next still at the end and a comment. > Andi, did you actually test your patch ? Unless I really miss something obvious, rate_last is supposed to store jiffies. net/ipv4/route.c:1313: if (time_after(jiffies, rt->u.dst.rate_last + ip_rt_redirect_silence)) So you *cannot* convert it to 'unsigned short'. Really. However, you could convert it to a u32, and use a helper function : static inline u32 get_jiffies_32() { return (u32)jiffies; } and change appropriate code using rate_last Also, 'lastuse' could use a u32 too, I even had a patch for this one... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html