[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081008125628.GD28783@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:56:28 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add a sysctl to disable TCP simultaneous connection opening
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 04:32:29PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Pavel,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 04:16:44PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/sysctl.h b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> >>> index d0437f3..0e23062 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/sysctl.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> >>> @@ -435,6 +435,7 @@ enum
> >>> NET_TCP_ALLOWED_CONG_CONTROL=123,
> >>> NET_TCP_MAX_SSTHRESH=124,
> >>> NET_TCP_FRTO_RESPONSE=125,
> >>> + NET_TCP_SIMULT_CONNECT=126,
> >> Minor - sysctl syscall (as long as numbers and ->strategy callbacks) are
> >> about to be removed some time, so new sysctls are to be CTL_UNNUMBERED.
> >
> > I noticed that one in the two latest UDP sysctls, but was not aware of the
> > rules related to its use. Given the number of unconverted sysctls, is it
> > worth changing it now ?
>
> Sorry, I don't get you here. Sysctls are not supposed to get converted,
> the intention is just to a) stop adding new sysctls with strategies and
> b) drop all the existing strategies in the future.
If existing declarations eventually get changed, that's what I call a
conversion :-)
OK I get you here. The patch will be resent with CTL_UNNUMBERED if there is
an agreement to get it merged.
Regards,
Willy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists