From: Wang Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:34:56 +0800
> David Miller said the following on 2008-1-21 19:25:
> > I am confused, this changelog for this patch mentions changes made
> > only in the net-2.6.25 tree.
> >
>
> Although I wrote that I find David.S's patch in net-2.6.
David Miller said the following on 2008-1-21 19:25:
> I am confused, this changelog for this patch mentions changes made
> only in the net-2.6.25 tree.
>
Although I wrote that I find David.S's patch in net-2.6.25 was wrong,
the guilty patch also in net-2.6 tree. Here is the web link.
http://git.k
From: Wang Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:15:07 +0800
> Dave, how about this one.
> It's like that one of IPV6.
I am confused, this changelog for this patch mentions changes made
only in the net-2.6.25 tree.
Yet you just told me the two other patches should be applied to
net-
Dave, how about this one.
It's like that one of IPV6.
Wang Chen said the following on 2008-1-16 17:59:
> In tree net-2.6.25, commit "96793b482540f3a26e2188eaf75cb56b7829d3e3"
> made a mistake.
>
> In that patch, David L added a icmp_out_count() in ip_push_pending_frames(),
> remove icmp_out_count
David Stevens said the following on 2008-1-17 0:23:
> Wang,
> I think your patch is correct; did you test the same case for
> IPv6?
>
I've tested IPv4, but IPv6 not yet.
If Davem accept this one, I will see the IPv6, or you take care of it.
--
WCN
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/16/2008 03:17:29 PM:
> Fair enough. How about moving this code back into icmp.c and just
> add a new count call in raw.c? The push pending function is used on
> the UDP fast path so the leaner it is the better.
I started out with it there, but it certainly w
David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The patch was to support the ICMPMsgStats table. Since none of
> certain
> types of output ICMP messages are generated by the kernel, but are
> required
> by the RFC, counting raw sockets is intentional (and the only way those
> ICMP
> types ca
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/16/2008 03:49:01 AM:
> Actually having the icmp_out_count call in ip_push_pending_frames seems
> inconsistent. Having it there means that we count raw socket ICMP
packets
> too. But we don't do that for any other protocol, e.g., raw UDP packets
> don't
Wang Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In tree net-2.6.25, commit "96793b482540f3a26e2188eaf75cb56b7829d3e3"
> made a mistake.
>
> In that patch, David L added a icmp_out_count() in ip_push_pending_frames(),
> remove icmp_out_count() from icmp_reply(). But he forgot to remove
> icmp_out_count() f
In tree net-2.6.25, commit "96793b482540f3a26e2188eaf75cb56b7829d3e3"
made a mistake.
In that patch, David L added a icmp_out_count() in ip_push_pending_frames(),
remove icmp_out_count() from icmp_reply(). But he forgot to remove
icmp_out_count() from icmp_send() too.
Since icmp_send and icmp_rep
10 matches
Mail list logo