[1]Summary of the problem:
On IA32 system, If jiffies - b > 0x7fff, router can not send
redirect packet.unsigned long b = rt->u.dst.rate_last
+(ip_rt_redirect_load << rt->u.dst.rate_tokens)
[2]Full description of the problem:
In linux kernel, if time_after(jiffies, (rt->u.dst.rate_last
+(ip_rt
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:57:50 -0500
Li Yewang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [1]Summary of the problem:
> On IA32 system, If jiffies - b > 0x7fff, router can not send
> redirect packet.unsigned long b = rt->u.dst.rate_last
> +(ip_rt_redirect_load << rt->u.dst.rate_tokens)
>
> [2]Full description
On Friday, November 17, 2006 11:51 AM
Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:57:50 -0500
Li Yewang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[1]Summary of the problem:
On IA32 system, If jiffies - b > 0x7fff, router can not send
redirect packet.unsigned long b = rt->u.dst.rat
Wei Yongjun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, time_after() works correctly for values that wraparound. For examples:
> if
> time a = (unsigned long)(-1), and time b = 1; time_after(b, a) = true.
> But if a is increaseing, after a circle of jiffies, a' = a + (unsigned
> long)(-1)
> + 1 = (uns
Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there are two problems here:
1) The first time we hit the check rate_last is zero. We should simply
proceed with the redirect rather than treating this as a jiffies value.
2) When a dst is so old that the jiffies have wrapped around. I'm
not sure w
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I think there are two problems here:
>
>1)The first time we hit the check rate_last is zero. We should simply
>proceed with the redirect rather than treating this as a jiffies value.
>
>2)When a dst is so old that the jiffies have wrapped around. I'm
>n
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:08:45PM +0800, Li Yewang wrote:
>
> --- linux-2.6.19/net/ipv4/route.c.org 2006-12-05 10:47:02.402147160
> +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.19/net/ipv4/route.c 2006-12-05 10:48:26.339386760 +0800
> @@ -1327,7 +1327,8 @@ void ip_rt_send_redirect(struct sk_buff
> /* Check for load
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:51:31PM +0800, Li Yewang wrote:
>
> I have also checked other spots where rate_last/rate_tokens is used.
> Those places need not be fixed.
Thanks.
> Following is my patch:
>
> signed-off-by: Li Yewang<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Looks good to me. You should cc David Miller <
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since rate_last can also be zero if jiffies == 0 (OK that's
> extremely unlikely but I'm feeling picky today :), how about
> checking rate_tokens instead? The value of rate_last can only
> be relevant if rate_tokens is non-zero.
>
> BTW, please also chec
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Applied, but I had to fix many errors in your patch by hand.
> Please take care of these details next time.
>
> Here, your email client wrapped the lines in the patch, corrupting it.
>
> Please use real tab characters, when necessary, in the indentation
From: Li Yewang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:45:25 +0800
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Applied, but I had to fix many errors in your patch by hand.
> > Please take care of these details next time.
> >
> > Here, your email client wrapped the lines in the patch,
11 matches
Mail list logo