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. > > 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
