|
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 11:44:25PM +0200, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Horms wrote:
>
> > That seems like a good work around to me, though perhaps HZ would
> > be better than 10*HZ.
> >
> > Here is a patch to formalise it slightly. This is for 2.6, i'll send a
> > version for 2.5 shortly.
^^^ that shuold be 2.4, my bad
> This patch is ok, it should be the only patch we need for
> 2.6. Similar patch that preserves current timeout for normal conns
> should be 2nd for 2.4, the 1st one being the patch that syncs
> ip_vs_conn_expire_now to 2.6 state. You can send these 3 patches
> to DaveM after short testing.
Will do. Though I'll probably send them here too.
--
Horms
|
