Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Basically either there is some missing locking here or it does not
> need to be "atomic_t". Judging from the way it *appears* to be used
> to check if cache entries are up-to-date with the latest changes in
> policy, I would guess the former.
You're rig
Whoops, I accidentally sent this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Original email below:
Hi, I was poking around trying to figure out how to install the Mobile
IPv6 daemons this evening and noticed they required a kernel patch,
although upon further inspection the kernel patch se
You'll get a better set of eyes on this if you post it
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which is where the networking
developers hang out.
linux-net is for user questions.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo i
Hi, I was poking around trying to figure out how to install the Mobile
IPv6 daemons this evening and noticed they required a kernel patch,
although upon further inspection the kernel patch seemed to already be
applied in 2.6.24. Unfortunately the flow cache appears to be
horribly racy. Attached b
4 matches
Mail list logo
