netns49
Hi Eric,
I noticed that you have a netns49 in your tree. Shall we use it ?
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 46FD1A3B.3060306-NmTC/[email protected]
Quoted 3 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Hi Eric,
I noticed that you have a netns49 in your tree. Shall we use it ?
Yes. That is the latest snapshot of my tree. Sorry for not putting out an announcement last night.
Eric
Quoted 3 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Hi Eric,
I noticed that you have a netns49 in your tree. Shall we use it ?
I haven't pulled in your timewait socket work as it looked incomplete but I should have removed the unnecessary tests for &init_net that you noticed in your other patchset.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): m1ir5uergf.fsf-T1Yj925okcoyDheHMi7gv2pdwda3JcWeAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org
Quoted 9 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 3 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Hi Eric,
I noticed that you have a netns49 in your tree. Shall we use it ?
I haven't pulled in your timewait socket work as it looked incomplete but I should have removed the unnecessary tests for
&init_netthat you noticed in your other patchset.
I think Denis and I we reached a complete patch posted a couple of hours ago. Finally I didn't put the exit method in the inet_timewait_sock.c file but I added it to the tcp.c file. There is a comment about that in the header of the patch.
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 46FD1E9F.4000200-NmTC/[email protected]
Quoted 4 lines · Daniel Lezcano
I think Denis and I we reached a complete patch posted a couple of hours ago. Finally I didn't put the exit method in the
inet_timewait_sock.cfile but I added it to thetcp.cfile. There is a comment about that in the header of the patch.
Yes. I saw that. At first glance it looks good and next time I'm through that part of the code I will add your patches to my tree.
My priority list of the moment is:
rtnetlink, pf_packet, and improving /proc so I don't confuse find.
I'm really trying to reach the point where at a bare bones level people can play with the functionality that is merged into the net-2.6.24 tree and therefore into 2.6.24. That should make it easier for more people to play with and test this code.
My ipv4 patches are at the very least going to require a reordering and a careful review before I am satisfied with them. They aren't exactly wrong but I think things could be done in a more obvious and deliberate manner.
Eric