From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Winchester Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1 -- strange apparent network failures Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:17:12 -0400 Message-ID: <473F9298.7060401@gmail.com> References: <20071113175906.497a1a6a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071115164441.67a8e2df.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <473E794A.4060107@kernel.org> <200711170848.35726.kjwinchester@gmail.com> <473F7EDB.60701@kernel.org> <473F8C46.4070308@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , apw@shadowen.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Andrew Morgan Return-path: Received: from simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net ([206.47.199.164]:61326 "EHLO simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754288AbXKRBRP (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:17:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: <473F8C46.4070308@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kevin Winchester wrote: > Looking at the code being bypassed: > > if (pE.cap[i] || pP.cap[i] || pP.cap[i]) > > looks somewhat weird as it is testing the same condition twice. Should > it have been: > > if (pE.cap[i] || pP.cap[i] || pI.cap[i]) > > ? > > I'm about to test that change instead of bypassing the loop, so I'll let > you know the results. > No, this still results in a dead network connection, although it is probably a correct change. I suppose giving the loop even more reasons to return -ERANGE wasn't going to be helpful. - -- Kevin Winchester -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHP5KXKPGFQbiQ3tQRAilbAJ9h3qtO9sb9+ctVU0pxzCBjysy06QCdE1Wd M5V3+0BWyn04p0UeUq/KSlw= =663t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----