From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mitsuru Chinen Subject: Re: (usagi-core 31424) Re: [PATCH 7/13] [RFC] [IPV6] Move source address selection into route lookup. Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:25:21 +0900 Message-ID: <45375291.4080607@jp.ibm.com> References: <20061016.222223.26532234.davem@davemloft.net> <45348DD4.4000600@6wind.com> <20061017.175231.45194288.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20061018.230850.91573842.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <4536E279.1090003@jp.ibm.com> <453743C0.4000701@tcs.hut.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org, davem@davemloft.net, tgraf@suug.ch, kim.nordlund@nokia.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, jean-mickael.guerin@6wind.com Return-path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:61150 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161384AbWJSKZf (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:25:35 -0400 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9JAPWXG005884 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:25:32 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/NCO v8.1.1) with ESMTP id k9JAPVwD513646 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:25:31 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k9JAPUcl028720 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:25:31 -0600 To: Ville Nuorvala In-Reply-To: <453743C0.4000701@tcs.hut.fi> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hello Ville, Ville Nuorvala wrote: > Mitsuru-san, > > could you apply patch #12 and rerun the test? I think this particular > problem is caused by the routing cache entry not having a valid source > address in the first place. As ip6_dst_lookup() doesn't do the source > address lookup anymore, it is critical that we only store cache entries > with complete address data for both destination and source. > > These two patches apparently shouldn't have been split in the first > place. Sorry! I'm afraid patch #12 doesn't work for this issue. Although I applied patch #12, I still got fails. The test log is the same as the last one. When I applied all patches, I got fails, either. Best Regards, -- Mitsuru Chinen