[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120221061922.GE31660@secunet.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:19:22 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: timo.teras@....fi, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix routing metrics
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:25:57PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:44:25 +0100
>
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:12:11AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> So since this happens, you don't need to check the inetpeer at every
> >> metric access. The fact that all routing cache entries get recreated
> >> will do it for you.
> >
> > So if rt_init_metrics() is not the right place to check for genid
> > changes, where would you suggest to do it?
>
> It is the right place, and since it will happen there for every routing
> cache entry we use after a flush, the inetpeer issues will be taken
> care of by it. Therefore you don't need to check anything at metrics
> access time.
Ok, apparently I looked at the wrong place. The only checks at metrics
access that might be superfluous are the inet_metrics_new() checks in
ipv4_metrics() and ipv6_metrics(). If these are the checks you mean,
I'd remove them and resend the patchset.
--
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