From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2.6.24] fib: fix route replacement, fib_info is shared Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:33:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20080128083302.GA2115@ff.dom.local> References: <20080127232018.GA2856@ami.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Joonwoo Park To: Julian Anastasov Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:43927 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750776AbYA1I0N (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:26:13 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so956880ugc.16 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:26:12 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080127232018.GA2856@ami.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 28-01-2008 00:20, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > Hi, I have a few questions below: > > Julian Anastasov wrote, On 01/26/2008 01:41 PM: ... >> --- linux-2.6.24/net/ipv4/fib_hash.c_orig 2008-01-25 10:45:06.000000000 +0200 >> +++ linux-2.6.24/net/ipv4/fib_hash.c 2008-01-26 14:11:34.000000000 +0200 >> @@ -434,19 +434,43 @@ static int fn_hash_insert(struct fib_tab >> >> if (fa && fa->fa_tos == tos && >> fa->fa_info->fib_priority == fi->fib_priority) { ...One more doubt here. Your FIB description doesn't say about this, and a code at the end of this function, where a new alias is inserted, doesn't seem to show this too. Are these aliases in the node sorted by fib_priority too? I mean, isn't it possible here, that we got fa from fib_node_alias() with right tos but greater fib_priority, but there is a better match (with right priority) later on the list yet? (The comment above this reads something else, but I'd be glad if you could confirm this.) Regards, Jarek P.