Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+ipvs\:\s+Use\s+64\-bit\s+comparisons\s+$connections\s+\*\s+weight$\s+to\s+avoid\s+overflow\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+ipvs\:\s+Use\s+64\-bit\s+comparisons\s+$connections\s+\*\s+weight$\s+to\s+avoid\s+overflow\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH] ipvs: Use 64-bit comparisons (connections * weight) to avoid overflow (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:02:11 +0300 (EEST); Hello, Weight should be >= 0, there is a 'server weight less than zero' error otherwise. OK, so everything is as expected :) Very good, thanks! Looks good to me, even if you add space between "(__s64; /html/lvs-devel/2013-08/msg00035.html (13,833 bytes)
2. [PATCH] ipvs: Use 64-bit comparisons (connections * weight) to avoid overflow (score: 1): Author: Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:54:34 -0700; I'm not missing it, I was just trying to determine if the weight _should_ be signed or not. :) I've never seen a negative weight documented anywhere. Ok, well, it turns out that GCC doesn't care and; /html/lvs-devel/2013-08/msg00028.html (21,142 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]