[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220524110749.6c29464b@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 11:07:49 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Yuwei Wang <wangyuweihx@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, roopa@...dia.com,
dsahern@...nel.org, 秦迪 <qindi@...ff.weibo.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net, neigh: introduce interval_probe_time
for periodic probe
On Tue, 24 May 2022 17:32:57 +0200 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Right, maybe we could just split this into two: 1) prevent misconfig (see
> below), and 2) make the timeout configurable as what Yuwei has. Wdyt?
>
> diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
> index 47b6c1f0fdbb..54625287ee5b 100644
> --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
> +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
> @@ -1579,7 +1579,7 @@ static void neigh_managed_work(struct work_struct *work)
> list_for_each_entry(neigh, &tbl->managed_list, managed_list)
> neigh_event_send_probe(neigh, NULL, false);
> queue_delayed_work(system_power_efficient_wq, &tbl->managed_work,
> - NEIGH_VAR(&tbl->parms, DELAY_PROBE_TIME));
> + max(NEIGH_VAR(&tbl->parms, DELAY_PROBE_TIME), HZ));
> write_unlock_bh(&tbl->lock);
> }
FWIW that was my reaction as well. Let's do that unless someone
disagrees.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists