|
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.
--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/
|
