On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 12:03:26PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> rt_cache_flush - it's not for all (I know - we don't like
> multipath - but untill it's here...)[...]
Sorry, I forgot it's already not there...
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
t
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:34:36PM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-03-28 11:24
> > Another idea Thomas and I tossed around was to have some kind of way
> > for the rule insertion to indicate that the flush should be deferred
> > and I kind of prefer that explicit
From: Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:34:36 +0200
> So people can choose to immediately flush by setting it to 0. It
> would also be consistent to the flush after route changes, the same
> delay is used there.
That's a good point I hadn't considered.
Therefore, I think
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-03-28 11:24
> Another idea Thomas and I tossed around was to have some kind of way
> for the rule insertion to indicate that the flush should be deferred
> and I kind of prefer that explicitness.
Right, although I believe the flag should not only defer it
bu
From: Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:49:03 +0200
> * Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-03-28 13:19
> > I hope I'm wrong, but isn't this at the cost of admins
> > working with long rules' sets, which (probably) take extra
> > time now?
>
> That's right, it makes t
* Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-03-28 13:19
> I hope I'm wrong, but isn't this at the cost of admins
> working with long rules' sets, which (probably) take extra
> time now?
That's right, it makes the insert and delete operation more
expensive.
A compromise would be to delay the flushi
On 27-03-2007 14:38, Thomas Graf wrote:
> The results of FIB rules lookups are cached in the routing cache
> except for IPv6 as no such cache exists. So far, it was the
> responsibility of the user to flush the cache after modifying any
> rules. This lead to many false bug reports due to misunderst
From: Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:38:45 +0200
> The results of FIB rules lookups are cached in the routing cache
> except for IPv6 as no such cache exists. So far, it was the
> responsibility of the user to flush the cache after modifying any
> rules. This lead to man
The results of FIB rules lookups are cached in the routing cache
except for IPv6 as no such cache exists. So far, it was the
responsibility of the user to flush the cache after modifying any
rules. This lead to many false bug reports due to misunderstanding
of this concept.
This patch automaticall
* Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-03-27 15:30
> That looks like a bug - shouldn't we flush the cache first, then do
> the rules_ops_put()?
Good catch, it's unlikely to happen but it is a bug.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 03:21:59PM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> The results of FIB rules lookups are cached in the routing cache
> except for IPv6 as no such cache exists. So far, it was the
> responsibility of the user to flush the cache after modifying any
> rules. This lead to many false bug rep
The results of FIB rules lookups are cached in the routing cache
except for IPv6 as no such cache exists. So far, it was the
responsibility of the user to flush the cache after modifying any
rules. This lead to many false bug reports due to misunderstanding
of this concept.
This patch automaticall
12 matches
Mail list logo
