From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steffen Klassert Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix routing metrics Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:19:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20120221061922.GE31660@secunet.com> References: <20120210075106.GL23142@secunet.com> <20120210.031211.2297215055759518521.davem@davemloft.net> <20120210084424.GM23142@secunet.com> <20120210.132557.396788563105190450.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: timo.teras@iki.fi, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([195.81.216.161]:32930 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750808Ab2BUGT3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:19:29 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120210.132557.396788563105190450.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:25:57PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Steffen Klassert > 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.