On Tuesday 13 March 2007 15:31, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Ok. When you do such changes you should always add a comment, otherwise
> it will be always destroyed with the next change.
>
> But it seems highly fragile to me anyways because it depends on the exact
> value of RTAX_MAX which tends to change regularly when someone invents
> a new attribute. You should probably have moved next out of the dst entry.
Not an option, unfortunately. But yes, a comment is needed.
(Before my february patches, the 'next' pointer was forced to be the first
field of dst).
>
> Anyways here's a new patch with next still at the end and a comment.
>
Andi, did you actually test your patch ?
Unless I really miss something obvious, rate_last is supposed to store
jiffies.
net/ipv4/route.c:1313: if (time_after(jiffies, rt->u.dst.rate_last +
ip_rt_redirect_silence))
So you *cannot* convert it to 'unsigned short'. Really.
However, you could convert it to a u32, and use a helper function :
static inline u32 get_jiffies_32()
{
return (u32)jiffies;
}
and change appropriate code using rate_last
Also, 'lastuse' could use a u32 too, I even had a patch for this one...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
