From: Brock Noland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:30:58 -0600
Is this going to be merged anytime soon?
If it gets submitted to the proper mailing list, it might.
'linux-net' is for user questions, it is not where the networking
developers hang out, 'netdev' is.
And you have to post
From: Li Zefan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:16:24 +0800
compile error building without CONFIG_FS_PROC:
net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c: In function 'fib_net_init':
net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c:1032: error: implicit declaration of function
'fib_proc_
init'
net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c: In
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-net in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:04:53 +0800
In SMP, if a bridge fdb is being created when another CPU at the same time
delete the bridge, this newly created fdb may incur a leakage:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CC:'d) is the proper place to report
things like this.
'linux-net' is only
From: Jeff Haran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:16:08 -0800
I don't know of NICs that would support this.
Many NICs support multiple unicast MAC addresses, we even
have driver APIs for this in the Linux kernel.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-net in
From: Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:08:09 -0800
Yes, doing UDP in user space is trivial.
Only if you also filter out the ICMP port unreachable's
the kernel is going to generate.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-net in
the body of a
From: Mateus Interciso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:58:41 -0200
The main reason I'm reading this book is that my final paper on
university is about the AntNet algorithm for routing, and I would VERY
like to implement it
This is not a mailing list where you get help writing your
From: Roel Kluin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:31:28 +0100
I got this bug recently, I am not sure whether this is related to
any previously reported ones. It was on a 2.6.24 or 2.6.24-rc1
git-pulled kernel.
The network developers do no listen on this mailing list.
Please report
From: Kristian Evensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:54:37 +0200
I have developed a small patch for the TCP code in 2.6.19 and it works
flawlessly. A couple of days ago I decided to make it compatible with
2.6.22.5 and have stumbled upon a problem I cannot solve.
In 2.6.19
From: Gabriel Paubert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:39:01 +0200
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:12:06AM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
A patch to restore pre-2.3.41 behaviour for IPv4 follows (and the
logic becomes much clearer IMO, not only because it avoids a goto),
but I'm
linux-net is for user questions and issues, developer discussion
and patches belong on netdev, thank you
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-net in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Any reason you're not sending this to the netfilter developer list
mentioned in MAINTAINERS, or it's chief maintainer Patrick McHardy?
NETFILTER/IPTABLES/IPCHAINS
P: Rusty Russell
P: Marc Boucher
P: James Morris
P: Harald Welte
P: Jozsef Kadlecsik
P: Patrick McHardy
From: Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 08:54:52 +1000
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:06:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
I'm not able to bring an ethernet interface down and back up again
with this if avahi-autoipd is installed on my Ubuntu boxes. I've seen
it on
From: Kiran Kumar Kella [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:41:22 +0530
I am using linux version 2.6.14
Appreciate your help on this problem.
Don't run such ancient kernels.
There were at least a dozen or more device refcount
leaks fixed since 2.6.14, any one of which could have
From: Jeff Haran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:51:18 -0700
OK, but my question remains. In the case where a device supports one set
of speeds via autonegotiation and another set via forcing, how does one
tell which speeds can be forced and which can be autonegotiated?
From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:56:39 +0200
Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
TBF --- Simple Token Bucket Filter --- packet scheduler doesn't
work correctly with TSO on that it slows down to send out packets.
TSO packets will be discarded since the size can be
From: Detlef Vollmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 08:18:29 +0200
I'd like to bind to 192.168.2.0, i.e. to the ANY address of that
subnet.
BSD sockets never allowed binding to subnets.
Look, just end this thread, I'm not adding this stupid functionality.
You can bind to
You might have more luck on netdev@vger.kernel.org which is where
the kernel networking developers actually subscribe.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-net in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
From: Yanping Du [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
We got complaints on this Linux behavior, since
customers feel it confusing, and don't want to see
ICMP replies for an eth ifc if it's down.
We're not replying to the eth interface we're replying
to the IP
From: Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:49:48 +0300
David Miller wrote:
From: Yanping Du [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We got complaints on this Linux behavior, since
customers feel it confusing, and don't want to see
ICMP replies for an eth ifc if it's down.
We're
From: Joy Latten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:44:30 -0600
This is similar to another bug reported last month.
Here is the patch I sent out then. Please let me know
how it goes.
Regards,
Joy
Signed-off-by: Joy Latten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This one is my bad, I should have
From: Bill Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 22:26:48 -0500
That seems like a bug to me. I'm running a 2.6.15-rc5 kernel and
my established TCP connections appear in /proc/net/tcp as expected.
And I do have IPv6 enabled (as a module), although I am not actually
using IPv6 for
From: suzuki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:27:28 -0800
But, the patch hasn't gone in and I am still seeing the problem on
2.6.19 :(.. I have tested this patch on 2.6.19 and if fixes the issue there.
The patch did go in, but it got reverted because I think it caused
problems.
I
From: Neil Horman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:45:53 -0500
Back in 2.4 arp requests that were recevied by netpoll were processed in
netconsole_receive_skb, where they were responded to using the src mac of the
request sender. In the 2.6 kernel arp_reply is responsible for this
From: Tim Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:19:39 -0800
At the point where the system is responding, there should be no
interfaces with the given IP address and ifconfig confirms this. The IP
address is not associated with any interface and should not be
associated with the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:10:08 +0200 (IST)
BTW, TCP will be significantly faster than UDP because with UDP you
incur an extra full context switch on every packet.
Could you elaborate on this a bit more? What kind of context switch?
TCP queues and takes care of
26 matches
Mail list logo
