On Wednesday 25 April 2007 11:52:52 Ismail Dönmez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 00:23:13 Ismail Dönmez wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 00:17:40 Thomas Graf wrote:
> > > * Ismail D?nmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-04-23 22:09
> > >
> > > > Yes I know the fix is in but I wondered why its
Hi,
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 00:23:13 Ismail Dönmez wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 00:17:40 Thomas Graf wrote:
> > * Ismail D?nmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-04-23 22:09
> >
> > > Yes I know the fix is in but I wondered why its creating such problems
> > > with 2.6.18 kernel, guess it depends on s
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 00:17:40 Thomas Graf wrote:
> * Ismail D?nmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-04-23 22:09
>
> > Yes I know the fix is in but I wondered why its creating such problems
> > with 2.6.18 kernel, guess it depends on some other commits.
>
> As long as you apply the complete patch includ
* Ismail D?nmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-04-23 22:09
> Yes I know the fix is in but I wondered why its creating such problems with
> 2.6.18 kernel, guess it depends on some other commits.
As long as you apply the complete patch including the additional
sanity check for RTN_MAX it should work perf
Hi,
On Monday 23 April 2007 21:51:25 David Miller wrote:
> From: Ismail Dönmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:06:34 +0300
>
> > --- a/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
> > @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static const struct
> > {
> > int error;
> >
From: Ismail Dönmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:06:34 +0300
> --- a/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static const struct
> {
> int error;
> u8 scope;
> -} fib_props[RTA_MAX + 1] = {
> +} fib_props[RTN_MAX + 1]
