On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 02:22:26PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Simon Horman wrote:
> > A pointed out by Shin Hong, IPVS doesn't always use atomic operations
> > in an atomic manner. While this seems unlikely to be manifest in
> > strange behaviour, it seems appropriate to clean this up.
> > Cc: 홍신 shin hong <hongshin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Applied, thanks.
> > if (af == AF_INET &&
> > (ip_vs_sync_state & IP_VS_STATE_MASTER) &&
> > (((cp->protocol != IPPROTO_TCP ||
> > cp->state == IP_VS_TCP_S_ESTABLISHED) &&
> > - (atomic_read(&cp->in_pkts) % sysctl_ip_vs_sync_threshold
> > + (pkts % sysctl_ip_vs_sync_threshold
> It seems that proc_do_sync_threshold() should check whether this value
> is zero. The current checks also look racy since incorrect values are
> first updated, then overwritten again.
Thanks, I'll look into that.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html