|
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:03:28AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
>
> > > There are more confusing (still, non-fatal)
> > > problems in this IPVS-SCTP support, eg.
> > >
> > > if (direction == IP_VS_DIR_OUTPUT)
> > > - event++;
> > > + event *= 2;
> > >
> > > I guess we are running with wrong timeouts.
> >
> > IMHO there seem to be many problems with SCTP, but it is good to
> > fix the ones we find as we find them.
>
> At the time I found it (during IPVS optimizations
> development), it didn't looked fatal, I preferred to
> allocate more time for SCTP for debugging.
>
> > Would you like to make a patch for the above change or should I?
>
> May be the code is correct, my mistake. I was
> confused from the order in sctp_events[] but ipvs_sctp_event_t
> allocates values for _SER states.
Thanks, it sounds like we should study things more carefully
before making any changes.
> > > Also, I'm not sure we support properly the
> > > one-way states as done for TCP (IP_VS_DIR_INPUT_ONLY).
> > > May be this code deserves more serious review, for example,
> > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_sctp.c looks as good
> > > source for comparison.
> >
> > I believe it does need a more serious review.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
>
--
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
|
