Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+bug\s+in\s+ARP\s+override\s+timer\s+near\s+jiffies\s+wrap\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+bug\s+in\s+ARP\s+override\s+timer\s+near\s+jiffies\s+wrap\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] bug in ARP override timer near jiffies wrap (score: 1): Author: David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:01:10 -0600; This patch fixes the calculation of "override" in ARP. +-DLS -- linux-2.6.6-rc2F1/net/ipv4/arp.c 2004-04-21 15:47:55.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6.6-rc2F2/net/ipv4/arp.c 2004-05-07 12:54:34.898406424; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00051.html (8,338 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] bug in ARP override timer near jiffies wrap (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:40:00 -0700; ... David, do you realize that the existing formula is not only correct, but also covers a greater time space than the time_*() mechanisms do?; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00052.html (8,214 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] bug in ARP override timer near jiffies wrap (score: 1): Author: David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:51:13 -0700; David S. Miller wrote on 05/07/2004 02:40:00 PM: ARG! you're right, of course-- I noticed only that they are different and didn't think about it actually be right! :-) +-DLS; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00054.html (7,951 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] bug in ARP override timer near jiffies wrap (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:55:01 -0700; But note that the main point is also that your change is still correct. The only reason I know about the time space issue with these tests is that Alexey mentioned it to me when I was converting most; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00055.html (8,893 bytes)
5. [PATCH] bug in ARP override timer near jiffies wrap (score: 1): Author: David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:01:10 -0600; This patch fixes the calculation of "override" in ARP. +-DLS -- linux-2.6.6-rc2F1/net/ipv4/arp.c 2004-04-21 15:47:55.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6.6-rc2F2/net/ipv4/arp.c 2004-05-07 12:54:34.898406424; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00569.html (8,338 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] bug in ARP override timer near jiffies wrap (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:40:00 -0700; ... David, do you realize that the existing formula is not only correct, but also covers a greater time space than the time_*() mechanisms do?; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00570.html (8,344 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] bug in ARP override timer near jiffies wrap (score: 1): Author: David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:51:13 -0700; David S. Miller wrote on 05/07/2004 02:40:00 PM: ARG! you're right, of course-- I noticed only that they are different and didn't think about it actually be right! :-) +-DLS; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00572.html (7,988 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] bug in ARP override timer near jiffies wrap (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:55:01 -0700; But note that the main point is also that your change is still correct. The only reason I know about the time space issue with these tests is that Alexey mentioned it to me when I was converting most; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00573.html (9,060 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]