In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:25:39 +0200 (MEST)), Jan
(BEngelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
(B
(B>
(B> On Mar 28 2005 17:39, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B wrote:
(B>
(B> >+ * This may look like an off by one error but it is
(B> >+
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:39:38 +0900 (JST)),
(BYOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
(B
(B> So, I'd suggest to put the comment back to 2.4/2.6 instead.
(B> (Note: net/socket.c refers this around MAX_SOCK_ADDR definition.)
(B>
(B>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:21:08 +0900 (JST)),
(BYOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
(B
(B> > It seems to me that the following code is off-by-one bug.
(B:
(B> Well, 2.2 has some comment on this:
(B
(BSo, I'd suggest to put the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:00:05 +0900), Tetsuo
Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> It seems to me that the following code is off-by-one bug.
>
> http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/unix/af_unix.c#L191
> http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/unix/af_unix.c?v=2.4.28#L182
>
> I
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:00:05 +0900), Tetsuo
Handa [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
It seems to me that the following code is off-by-one bug.
http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/unix/af_unix.c#L191
http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/unix/af_unix.c?v=2.4.28#L182
I think
((char
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:21:08 +0900 (JST)),
(BYOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
(B
(B It seems to me that the following code is off-by-one bug.
(B:
(B Well, 2.2 has some comment on this:
(B
(BSo, I'd suggest to put the comment
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:39:38 +0900 (JST)),
(BYOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
(B
(B So, I'd suggest to put the comment back to 2.4/2.6 instead.
(B (Note: net/socket.c refers this around MAX_SOCK_ADDR definition.)
(B
(B
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:33:08 -0800), Andrew
Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Now about IPv6: npush and npoll are two applications I wrote. npush
> > sends multicast announcements and opens a TCP socket.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:33:08 -0800), Andrew
Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Felix von Leitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now about IPv6: npush and npoll are two applications I wrote. npush
sends multicast announcements and opens a TCP socket. npoll receives
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:31:43 +), Ralph
Corderoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > the short version also have the real bennefits of generating shorter
> > and faster code as well as being shorter "on-screen".
>
> Faster code? I'd have thought avoiding the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:31:43 +), Ralph
Corderoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
the short version also have the real bennefits of generating shorter
and faster code as well as being shorter on-screen.
Faster code? I'd have thought avoiding the function call
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:36:35 +0100 (CET)),
Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> I considered also rewriting the
> if (fl)
> fl_free(fl);
> bit as simply fl_free(fl) as well, but that if() potentially saves two
> calls to kfree() inside
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:36:35 +0100 (CET)),
Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
I considered also rewriting the
if (fl)
fl_free(fl);
bit as simply fl_free(fl) as well, but that if() potentially saves two
calls to kfree() inside fl_free
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:28:26 -0500), sean
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> pub/mirrors/linux/kernel/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots
>
> Now there just the 2.6.11.x snapshots.
>
> For instance where is bk10?
Now 2.6.11.3-bk1 has come up...
The bk-snap script seems to be
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:28:26 -0500), sean
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
pub/mirrors/linux/kernel/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots
Now there just the 2.6.11.x snapshots.
For instance where is bk10?
Now 2.6.11.3-bk1 has come up...
The bk-snap script seems to be scewed
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:24:24 +), Alan Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> 1003.1g both agree with your expectations. The right list is probably
> netdev@oss.sgi.com however.
I've just forwarded this thread to netdev.
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:24:24 +), Alan Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
1003.1g both agree with your expectations. The right list is probably
netdev@oss.sgi.com however.
I've just forwarded this thread to netdev.
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:16:55 +1100), CaT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> If it bound to :: port 22 then 0.0.0.0:22 would fail.
>
> On the other hand if I got it to bind to each address individually then
> both ipv4 (2 addresses) and ipv6 (1 address) binds would
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:16:55 +1100), CaT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
If it bound to :: port 22 then 0.0.0.0:22 would fail.
On the other hand if I got it to bind to each address individually then
both ipv4 (2 addresses) and ipv6 (1 address) binds would succeed.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:16:42 +0100), Lorenzo
Hernández García-Hierro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Ported feature from grSecurity that makes possible to add an ipaddr
> entry in each /proc/ (/proc//ipaddr), where the task originating
> IP address is stored, and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:16:42 +0100), Lorenzo
Hernández García-Hierro [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Ported feature from grSecurity that makes possible to add an ipaddr
entry in each /proc/pid (/proc/pid/ipaddr), where the task originating
IP address is stored, and
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:37:44 -0800 (PST)), Linus
Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> In contrast, making it a real release, and making it clear that it's a
> release in its own right, might actually get people to use it.
>
> Might. Maybe.
I believe people soon
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:58:30 -0800), "David S.
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> All this "I have to hold onto my backlog longer, WAHHH!" arguments are bogus
> IMHO. We're using a week of quiescence to fix the tree for users so they
> are happy whilst we work on
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:58:30 -0800), David S.
Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
All this I have to hold onto my backlog longer, WAHHH! arguments are bogus
IMHO. We're using a week of quiescence to fix the tree for users so they
are happy whilst we work on the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:37:44 -0800 (PST)), Linus
Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
In contrast, making it a real release, and making it clear that it's a
release in its own right, might actually get people to use it.
Might. Maybe.
I believe people soon stop
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:54:15 -0800), [EMAIL
PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) says:
> No, sorry. We're working on the tarball+patch server we talked about about
> a couple years back and I screwed up the http server. The bk:// urls work,
> please use them until I fix
Hello.
*.bkbits.net (port 8080) seems to reply with no data.
And "bk pull" on linux-2.5 also fails.
Is this scheduled?
Thank you.
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Hello.
*.bkbits.net (port 8080) seems to reply with no data.
And bk pull on linux-2.5 also fails.
Is this scheduled?
Thank you.
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:54:15 -0800), [EMAIL
PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) says:
No, sorry. We're working on the tarball+patch server we talked about about
a couple years back and I screwed up the http server. The bk:// urls work,
please use them until I fix this,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:33:37 +0100), Adrian
Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> +
> +What:EXPORT_SYMBOL(do_settimeofday)
> +When:26 Aug 2005
~~~ Feb?
> +Files: arch/*/kernel/time.c
> +Why: not used in the kernel
> +Who:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:37:42 +0900 (JST)),
(BYOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
(B
(B> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:33:37 +0100), Adrian
(B> Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
(B>
(B>
(B> > +
(B> >
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:37:42 +0900 (JST)),
(BYOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
(B
(B In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:33:37 +0100), Adrian
(B Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
(B
(B
(B +
(B +What:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:33:37 +0100), Adrian
Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
+
+What:EXPORT_SYMBOL(do_settimeofday)
+When:26 Aug 2005
~~~ Feb?
+Files: arch/*/kernel/time.c
+Why: not used in the kernel
+Who: Adrian Bunk
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:41:45 +1100), Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 09:45:59PM +1100, herbert wrote:
> >
> > Although I still think this is a bug, I'm now starting to suspect
> > that there is another bug around as well.
> >
> >
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:55:19 +0100), Andre Tomt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> I'm contemplating just using it as a quick-fix until 2.6.11 to get this
> problem under control.
Would you find if my patch works? Thanks.
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:55:19 +0100), Andre Tomt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
I'm contemplating just using it as a quick-fix until 2.6.11 to get this
problem under control.
Would you find if my patch works? Thanks.
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:41:45 +1100), Herbert Xu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 09:45:59PM +1100, herbert wrote:
Although I still think this is a bug, I'm now starting to suspect
that there is another bug around as well.
There is probably
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:31:07 +0900 (JST)),
(BYOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
(B
(B> The source of problem is entry (*) which still on routing entry,
(B> not on gc list. And, the owner of entry is not routing table but
(B>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:04:11 -0800), "David S.
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:37:23 +0900 (JST)
> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How about making dst->ops->dev_check() like this:
> >
> > static
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:02:42 -0800), "David S.
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > Yes, IPv6 needs "split device" semantics
> > (for per-device statistics such as Ip6InDelivers etc),
> > and I like later solution.
>
> Ok. I never read whether ipv6, like ipv4,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:10:44 -0800), "David S.
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > Alternatively we can
> > remove the dst->dev == dev check in dst_dev_event and dst_ifdown
> > and move that test down to the individual ifdown functions.
>
> I think there is a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:48:15 +0100), Andre Tomt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > Please tell me, why your lo is down...
:
> "ifdown -a" gets run on shutdown and reboot here, and ifdown -a in
> Debian brings down loopback before any other interfaces.
Okay, thanks.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:14:04 +0100), Andre Tomt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> This patch fixes my problems with hangs when dot1q VLAN interfaces gets
> removed when loopback is down, as reported in the thread "2.6.10
> ipv6/8021q lockup on vconfig on interface
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:46:43 +1100), Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> If we wanted to preserve the split device semantics, then we
> can create a local GC list in IPv6 so that it can search based
> on rt6i_idev as well as the other keys. Alternatively we can
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:10:44 -0800), David S.
Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Alternatively we can
remove the dst-dev == dev check in dst_dev_event and dst_ifdown
and move that test down to the individual ifdown functions.
I think there is a hole in this
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:02:42 -0800), David S.
Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Yes, IPv6 needs split device semantics
(for per-device statistics such as Ip6InDelivers etc),
and I like later solution.
Ok. I never read whether ipv6, like ipv4, is specified to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:04:11 -0800), David S.
Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:37:23 +0900 (JST)
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about making dst-ops-dev_check() like this:
static int inline
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:31:07 +0900 (JST)),
(BYOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
(B
(B The source of problem is entry (*) which still on routing entry,
(B not on gc list. And, the owner of entry is not routing table but
(B
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:46:43 +1100), Herbert Xu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
If we wanted to preserve the split device semantics, then we
can create a local GC list in IPv6 so that it can search based
on rt6i_idev as well as the other keys. Alternatively we can
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:14:04 +0100), Andre Tomt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
This patch fixes my problems with hangs when dot1q VLAN interfaces gets
removed when loopback is down, as reported in the thread 2.6.10
ipv6/8021q lockup on vconfig on interface removal.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:48:15 +0100), Andre Tomt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Please tell me, why your lo is down...
:
ifdown -a gets run on shutdown and reboot here, and ifdown -a in
Debian brings down loopback before any other interfaces.
Okay, thanks. (I now
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:00:40 +0100), Patrick
McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
|We don't need this for IPv6 yet. Once we get nf_conntrack in we
|might need this, but its IPv6 fragment handling is different from
|ip_conntrack, I need to check first.
Ok. It would
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:11:32 +1100), Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, final decision: you are right :) conntrack also defragments locally
> > generated packets before they hit ip_fragment. In this case
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:11:32 +1100), Herbert Xu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, final decision: you are right :) conntrack also defragments locally
generated packets before they hit ip_fragment. In this case the fragments
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:19:49 +1100), Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> IMHO you need to give the user a way to specify which table they want
> to operate on. If they don't specify one, then the current behaviour
> of choosing the first table found is
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:19:49 +1100), Herbert Xu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
IMHO you need to give the user a way to specify which table they want
to operate on. If they don't specify one, then the current behaviour
of choosing the first table found is reasonble.
We
56 matches
Mail list logo
