| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] [RTNETLINK] Fix RTM_MAX to represent the maximum valid message type |
| From: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 4 May 2005 01:02:17 +0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050503152704.4c6744d6.davem@davemloft.net> |
| References: | <20050430195058.GC577@postel.suug.ch> <20050503142740.345925ea.davem@davemloft.net> <20050503222003.GQ577@postel.suug.ch> <20050503152704.4c6744d6.davem@davemloft.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
* David S. Miller <20050503152704.4c6744d6.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-03 15:27 > On Wed, 4 May 2005 00:20:03 +0200 > Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > * David S. Miller <20050503142740.345925ea.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-03 > > 14:27 > > > Excellent observation. The fact that we encode the "modifies state" > > > in the low bits of the RTM_* numbers has always been a source of > > > obscure bugs and hard to track down errors. > > > > > > Patch applied, thanks. > > > > Do you want 2.4 backports for all patches or just the xfrm > > off-by-one fix? > > Congratulations if you can find xfrm in the vanilla > 2.4.x tree :-) Heh, ok ok ;-> I think none of the patches need to be backported then, although the type > RTM_MAX has an off-by-one issue the current RTM_MAX is set to one below the start of the next block so the behaviour matches the 2.6 tree. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Mystery packet killing tg3, Stephen Hemminger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Mystery packet killing tg3, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] [RTNETLINK] Fix RTM_MAX to represent the maximum valid message type, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/3] [RTNETLINK] Fix & cleanup rtm_min/rtm_max, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |