send me please the formatted by you version so I can work on it
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 17:14 +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 12:51:00AM +0200, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > Hello,
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Rumen Bogdanovski wrote:
> > > Hi Simon,
> > > Here is the patch fixed as Julian proposed. I have used the second
> > > approach he offered since the first one required function redefinings
> > > with unnecessary service parameters. I hope ip_vs_find_dest() is safe
> > > now.
> > Yep, dest usage looks valid now, thanks! I would be
> > satisfied if patch goes uplink with coding style fixed to
> > avoid rejection at higher level.
> Thanks Rumen, thanks Julian. It looks good to me too.
> I've tided up a few of the formatting problems
> (well, as I see them, we will see what the netdev people think).
> As both patches now seem to be in order I will forward them
> on shortly. I'll CC the people who are on this post.
> Lastly, I wonder if we should have ip_vs_dest_get and ipvs_vs_dest_put
> rather than having atomic increments and decrements scattered throughout
> the code.