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> Sig
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 comme
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 thin
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
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 functio
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 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 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: se
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 succee
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 subse
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 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,
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 http://vger
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
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> > +Wha
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.
> >
> > The
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: sen
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> unica
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, is
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 hol
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
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 remo
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 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 be
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 t
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 reasonbl
29 matches
Mail list logo