Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Source\s+Specific\s+Query\s+of\s+MLDv2\s+\[PATCH\]\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Source\s+Specific\s+Query\s+of\s+MLDv2\s+\[PATCH\]\s*$/: 46 ]

Total 46 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: avid S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:01:37 -0700; Below is a patch that allows MLD ICMP types without applying the interface filters to them. +-DLS [in-line & attached] diff -ruN linux-2.6.2/include/net/addrconf.h linux-2.6.2F1/include/net/addrconf; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00136.html (11,690 bytes)
2. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: avid S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:53:25 -0800; David, please don't pollute global name space so badly :-) ipv6_is_mld() would be fine.; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00141.html (9,045 bytes)
3. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: avid S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:12:59 -0700; Of course, sorry about that. :-) +-DLS diff -ruN linux-2.6.2/include/net/addrconf.h linux-2.6.2F1/include/net/addrconf.h -- linux-2.6.2/include/net/addrconf.h 2004-02-03 19:44:17.000000000 -0800 +++; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00142.html (12,274 bytes)
4. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: lstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:22:33 +0900 (JST); Why not in icmpv6_rcv()? we need to do pskb_pull() before touching type/code. Please do not remove this. We need to check destination (but not source) because the driver may be in "promisc." mode. --; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00144.html (10,763 bytes)
5. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: 槑 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:24:38 -0800; 'deliver' is always true now, please kill it and all the code trying to test it :); /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00145.html (9,670 bytes)
6. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: I Hideaki / 鍚夎棨鑻辨槑 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:29:37 +0900 (JST); We should test the destination address here. --yoshfuji; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00146.html (10,221 bytes)
7. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:33:30 -0800; Ok, you and David work things out and let me know when the final patch is ready.; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00147.html (9,890 bytes)
8. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 鍚夎棨鑻辨槑 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:39:47 -0800; "Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/06/2004 08:22:33 PM: I don't understand this question. It's needed every place *except* icmpv6_rcv(). Yes, you're right; I'll add; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00148.html (11,647 bytes)
9. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 14:25:19 +0900 (JST); Sorry for any confusion. Yes, but it changes the original and traditional behavior. Well... It is okay not to check destination here with good hardware / driver. We however should check the destinati; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00151.html (12,964 bytes)
10. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: ldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:40:42 -0800; Good idea; I'll incorporate all the comments, retest and repost. I think you mean (dev->flags & (IFF_PROMISC|IFF_ALLMULTI)) here, right? This certainly could be done and I had this in mind for the fu; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00152.html (10,693 bytes)
11. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:46:03 +0900 (JST); Oops! Sorry, you're right... And, it'd be good to use unlikely() here. -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00153.html (10,833 bytes)
12. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: ov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:20:52 -0700; Here's a revised version with all the comments incorporated. +-DLS diff -ruN linux-2.6.2/include/net/addrconf.h linux-2.6.2F2/include/net/addrconf.h -- linux-2.6.2/include/net/addrconf.h 2004-02-03 1; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00235.html (14,361 bytes)
13. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: hailfinger.kernel.2004@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:51:24 +0900 (JST); likely(!(skb->dev->flags & (IFF_PROMISC|IFF_ALLMULTI)))? Where is pskb_pull()? I'd suggest to check the protocol number != icmp there. After doing pskb_pull() in icmpv6_rcv(), we see type field. BTW,; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00245.html (13,258 bytes)
14. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: UJI Hideaki / 鍚夎棨鑻辨槑 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:45:43 -0700; "Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/09/2004 07:51:24 PM: If your question is "why use the deliver variable?", I left that because it'd need to be re-added when multic; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00268.html (15,808 bytes)
15. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:02:34 +0900 (JST); No. My point is, !(skb->dev->flags & IFF_PROMISC|IFF_ALLMULTI) is likely true. And, let's concentrate on fixing the original bug: and seems needless to fix the bug. (Or you may want to submit another; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00272.html (12,549 bytes)
16. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: alland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:39:15 -0700; "Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/10/2004 07:02:34 PM: Yes, "deliver" is set to the _expression_ that includes the check true, which is why the patch I sent has "if; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00273.html (12,771 bytes)
17. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: u <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:01:52 +0900 (JST); David, they produce different assembly code. If we say deliver = likely(!(skb->dev->flags & (IFF_PROMISC|IFF_ALLMULTI))) || ipv6_chk_mcast_addr(skb->dev, &skb->nh.ipv6h->daddr, NULL); then we can run; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00274.html (12,352 bytes)
18. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:00:39 -0700; Ok, here's what I hope is the final version of the patch, so we can finally put this to bed. :-) +-DLS diff -ruN linux-2.6.2/include/net/addrconf.h linux-2.6.2F2/include/net/addrconf.h -- linux-2.6.2; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00299.html (14,324 bytes)
19. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:03:28 +0900 (JST); Well... You forgot to check if proto is IPPROTO_ICMPV6. (This is one reason why I want to check the icmpv6 code in icmpv6_rcv().) if (ipv6_addr_is_multicast(&hdr->daddr) && !ipv6_chk_mcast_addr(skb->; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00300.html (11,545 bytes)
20. Re: Source Specific Query of MLDv2 [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:34:37 -0700; "Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 02/11/2004 06:03:28 PM: Arg! You're right! I had no idea what you were talking about with that comment about icmpv6_rcv() (the test c; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00325.html (15,209 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]