| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] rtnetlink & address family problem |
| From: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:10:33 +0100 |
| Cc: | Michal Ludvig <mludvig@xxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <1102425618.1089.133.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| References: | <41B0A5B4.6060108@suse.cz> <20041206140214.GA749@postel.suug.ch> <1102386461.1093.26.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20041207124922.GA1371@postel.suug.ch> <1102424568.1089.120.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20041207131706.GB1371@postel.suug.ch> <1102425618.1089.133.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
* jamal <1102425618.1089.133.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2004-12-07 08:20 > On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 08:17, Thomas Graf wrote: > > > It's not really related to the gnet_stats code. stats_lock isn't set > > in the action code when using an older iproute2. I haven't tested this > > case because it was marked as broken anyway. > > Can you ping my memory on this? Is this tc with initial support > for actions or something much older than that. I'm not sure, I'm testing with a version having no action support at all. It should be fairly easy to find the bug once I have the time to really look into it. I'm still getting interrupted all the time at the moment. All actions created via tcf_hash_create, tcf_police_locate, and tcf_act_police_locate should be fine. There must be some bogus path related to older tc versions. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: _High_ CPU usage while routing (mostly) small UDP packets, P |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] fix select() for SOCK_RAW sockets, Mitchell Blank Jr |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] rtnetlink & address family problem, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] rtnetlink & address family problem, Thomas Graf |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |