|
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:27:57AM +0100, Roberto Nibali wrote:
> Hello Horms,
>
> >Yes, it is called ipvs-0.1.7-sync_proc.2.patch. Version 2 of the
> >sync_proc patch for ipvs-0.1.7. If I called it ipvs-0.1.7.patch then I
> >wouldn't know which patch for ipvs-0.1.7 it was.
>
> What is ipvs-0.1.7?? I apologise to you for my ignorance. I thought it
> was against ipvs-1.0.7. The rest is of course pure logic I do the same
> way actually.
Phht
> >I have attached ipvs-0.1.7-sync_proc.3.patch fixing the minor spelling
> >problem you pointed out. Spelling has never been my strong point.
>
> I assume it is correct even though the patch didn't travel all along the
> Internet into my mailbox ;).
The old forgetting to attach the attachment trick. Gets 'em every time.
> >>>>>#define IP_VS_SYNC_PORT 8848 /* multicast port */
> >>>>
> >>>>I wonder if this should also be made selectable?
> >>>
> >>>Good point.
> >>
> >>Can be done in the next round, when this patch is in.
> >
> >Good plan, this patch is big enough as it is.
>
> And it is nice, clear and straightforward. It doesn't change anything
> AFAICT if you do not touch those proc-fs variables. So I think it is
> definitely a good patch. With this patch we can also do some tests to
> see how far we can stress the synchronisation.
Yes, nothing should change unless you twiddle the proc values.
> >You confuse me sometimes too :)
> >
> >>ratz@zar:~/down/ipvs > grep VS_STATE_INPUT_ONLY ipvs-0.1.7-sync_proc.*
> >>ipvs-0.1.7-sync_proc.2.patch:+#define VS_STATE_INPUT_ONLY 8
> >>ipvs-0.1.7-sync_proc.2.patch:-#define VS_STATE_INPUT_ONLY 8
> >>ipvs-0.1.7-sync_proc.patch:+#define VS_STATE_INPUT_ONLY 8
> >>ratz@zar:~/down/ipvs >
>
> If you'd moved the VS_STATE_INPUT_ONLY variable in the first patch, I
> would see a line with a leading "-" too for it instead of only a line
> with a leading "+". Patch 2 correctly reports two occurencies of
> VS_STATE_INPUT_ONLY, one with the leading "-" and one with the leading
> "+" which indicates a real move.
Yes, the initial patch was missing the - lines.
> BTW, the thing about confusion was more or less what I wrote to Martijn
> in my last email in Chinese. Actually it is more along the lines of "I'm
> pretty darn hard to deal with, I can also be confusing".
>
> >>#define NR_CONNS (1 << (8 * sizeof((struct ip_vs_sync_mesg
> >>*)->nr_conns))) - 1
> >
> >I'm not sure what you are getting at there. A convenience macro
> >for accessing blah->nr_conns ?
>
> Don't worry. I wanted to remove the 255 in the code and replace it with
> the calculated amount of connections from the struct, so once we'll
> change it to 16bit we wouldn't need to run s/255/16383/g.
Ahh ok, good pt. But it is probably safe to just leave it as is for now,
or make it a static define. I think we can leave that up to Wensong.
--
Horms
ipvs-1.0.7-sync_proc.3.patch
Description: Text document
|
