| To: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Hard freeze with 2.6.10-rc3 and QoS, worked fine with 2.6.9 |
| From: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:23:46 +0100 |
| Cc: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Thomas Cataldo <tomc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20041207170748.GF1371@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1102380430.6103.6.camel@buffy> <20041206224441.628e7885.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <1102422544.1088.98.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41B5E188.5050800@xxxxxxxxx> <20041207170748.GF1371@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041008 Debian/1.7.3-5 |
Thomas Graf wrote: * Patrick McHardy <41B5E188.5050800@xxxxxxxxx> 2004-12-07 17:59That's also what I thought at first. But the problem is in tcf_action_copy_stats, it assumes a->priv has the same layout as struct tcf_act_hdr, which is not true for struct tcf_police. This patch rearranges struct tcf_police to match tcf_act_hdr.Hehe, see my post a few minutes back. I came up with nearly the same solution ;-> The only difference to my patch is that I don't touch tcf_police if the action code isn't compiled. Either one is fine with me, although I would prefer to see the number of ifdefs in this area going down, not up :) Regards Patrick |
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] PKT_SCHED: validate policer configuration TLVs, Thomas Graf |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | What is a reasonable upper limit to the rt_hash_table., Robin Holt |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Hard freeze with 2.6.10-rc3 and QoS, worked fine with 2.6.9, Thomas Graf |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Hard freeze with 2.6.10-rc3 and QoS, worked fine with 2.6.9, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |