Hello,
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
But comment#3 is ambiguous... It looks like you don't want to show
us too much... So, apparently you change the route, but it seems this
route exists; you have this:
10.0.0.0/8 dev eth0 scope link
but probably also something
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:49:06AM +0200, Julian Anastasov wrote:
...
No, simply the last change in 2.6.24 is wrong to assume
duplication is evident in fib_info reference counter. And such check
is only on ip route replace/change. I'm appending brief FIB information
for your reference:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Joonwoo Park wrote:
2008/1/26, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But whatever. It used to work. People's scripts will break. Regression.
Also I thought that 'replace with itself' should be error as like Jarek.
But it used to work and patch
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:20:26PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
...
That's not a very good analogy - the source is a kernel object. A better
example would be:
linux-2.6.24-rc8:
echo foo /tmp/1
echo bar /tmp/2
echo foo /tmp/1
linux-2.6.24:
echo foo /tmp/1
echo bar /tmp/2
echo
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:40:36PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Joonwoo Park wrote:
2008/1/26, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But whatever. It used to work. People's scripts will break.
Regression.
Also I thought that 'replace
Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing
should be done with 'ip route change' (but I didn't check if 2.6.24
knows about this...).
$ man ip
[...]
ip route add - add new route
ip route change - change route
ip
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:10:10PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
[...] so old thing is always supposed to be
destroyed (of course it's a matter of implementation or conditions in
which moment this destruction takes place).
So, 'replace with itself' is simply ambiguous: we can always
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing
should be done with 'ip route change' (but I didn't check if 2.6.24
knows about this...).
$ man ip
[...]
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:19:34PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing
should be done with 'ip route change' (but I
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:11:26AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
But comment#3 is ambiguous... It looks like you don't want to show
us too much... So, apparently you change the route, but it seems this
route exists; you have this:
10.0.0.0/8 dev eth0 scope link
but probably also
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:11:57 +0100 Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote, On 01/25/2008 11:26 PM:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:23:49 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9816
...
I'd agree with Andrea: replacing a route
2008/1/26, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But whatever. It used to work. People's scripts will break. Regression.
Also I thought that 'replace with itself' should be error as like Jarek.
But it used to work and patch made a regression, it's my bad :(
I think Julian's recent patches on
Andrew Morton wrote, On 01/25/2008 11:26 PM:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:23:49 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9816
...
I'd agree with Andrea: replacing a route with itself a) used to work and b)
should still work (surely)?
...on the other hand:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:23:49 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9816
Summary: cannot replace route
Product: Networking
Version: 2.5
KernelVersion: 2.6.24
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
14 matches
Mail list logo
