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
