|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:53:05AM +0200, Sven Wegener wrote:
> > We can't access the cache entry outside of our critical read-locked region,
> > because someone may free that entry. Also getting an entry under read lock,
> > then locking for write and trying to delete that entry looks fishy, but
> > should
> > be no problem here, because we're only comparing a pointer. Also there is no
> > need for our own rwlock, there is already one in the service structure for
> > use
> > in the schedulers.
>
> Hi Sven,
>
> this looks good to me. Just a few minor comments inline.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Sven Wegener <sven.wegener@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c | 229
> > +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > 1 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 115 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c b/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c
> > index f1c8450..96bfdc2 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c
> > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ ip_vs_dest_set_insert(struct ip_vs_dest_set *set,
> > struct ip_vs_dest *dest)
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > - e = kmalloc(sizeof(struct ip_vs_dest_list), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + e = kmalloc(sizeof(*e), GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> I think that I prefer using struct ip_vs_dest_list rather than *e.
> Ditto for *tbl below.
Actually, it's part of CodingStyle to use *e.
> > +out:
> > IP_VS_DBG(6, "LBLCR: destination IP address %u.%u.%u.%u "
> > "--> server %u.%u.%u.%u:%d\n",
> > - NIPQUAD(en->addr),
> > + NIPQUAD(iph->addr),
>
> Minor problem, this should be iph->daddr
Good catch, I've updated my patch locally. Let's get a consensus on the
sizeof issue and I'll repost.
Sven
--
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
|
