Re: [lvs-devel] Two patches for handling the synced connections

To: Rumen Bogdanovski <rumen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-devel] Two patches for handling the synced connections
Cc: Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, LVS Development mailing list <lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jmack@xxxxxxxx, Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>, graeme@xxxxxxxxxxx
From: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:17:27 -0800
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:36:20AM +0200, Rumen Bogdanovski wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> I did what you asked for, the patches are prepared against the current
> net-2.6 tree
> 1. ipvs-showsync.patch
>   1.1.
>        WARNING: line over 80 characters
>        #29: FILE: net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c:800:
>        +   "Pro FromIP   FPrt ToIP     TPrt DestIP   DPrt State
> Origin Expires\n");
>        WARNING: line over 80 characters
>        #73: FILE: net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c:996:
>        +       proc_net_fops_create(&init_net, "ip_vs_conn_sync", 0,
> &ip_vs_conn_sync_fops);
>        total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 78 lines checked
>        If you find these fatal, let me know, but I do not think it is.
>   1.2. This patch had two failures against the current net-2.6 tree 
>        the problems were in proc_net_fops_create() and proc_net_remove()
>        which actually needed an extra parameter compared to 
>        I have added "&init_net" and it compiles. I hope I did it the
>        right way, didn't I?

Yes, that looks correct to me.

> 2. ipvs-sync-setstate.patch
>   2.1.
>        Your patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for
> submission.
>   2.2. No problems found with this one for the current net-2.6 tree.
>   2.3. This is an improved version of the previous patch I have sent.
>        The previous one was "a proof of concept". Now the connection
>        state is set (if needed) on each sync not only on creation, 
>        so the backup will always (well almost) know the real state 
>        of the synced connections.
> Pay attention to 1.2. please, since the patches are tested on 
> Did I make it right? However the net-2.6 tree compiles without any
> complaints with these patches applied.

Both of these patches seem fine to me. I will send them to netdev
for further review.


LVS Development mailing list - lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-devel-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>