From: ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:41:48 -0800
> David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > From: ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman)
> > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:49:04 -0800
> >
> >> @@ -249,6 +253,19 @@ static int veth_close(struct net_device *dev)
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int is_valid_veth_mtu(int new_mtu)
> >> +{
> >> + return (new_mtu >= MIN_MTU && new_mtu <= MAX_MTU);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int veth_change_mtu(struct net_device *dev, int new_mtu)
> >> +{
> >> + if (is_valid_veth_mtu(new_mtu))
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + dev->mtu = new_mtu;
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > This validity test seems to be reversed?
>
> Crap. You are correct. I will respin.
Please test your patches.
This one obviously didn't get even one single "ifconfig x mtu y" type
test. It would have failed on any in-range value.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
