Hello,
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On 06-01-2015 19:06, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2015, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > if (!(flags & IP_VS_CONN_F_TEMPLATE)) {
> > > cp = ip_vs_conn_in_get(param);
> > > if (cp && ((cp->dport != dport) ||
> > > !ip_vs_addr_equal(cp->daf, &cp->daddr,
> > > daddr))) {
> > > if (!(flags & IP_VS_CONN_F_INACTIVE)) {
> > > ip_vs_conn_expire_now(cp);
> > > __ip_vs_conn_put(cp);
> > > cp = NULL;
> > > } else {
> >
> > I assume we will not stop here sync for some connection that
> > was normally expired in master but was delayed in backup. TCP sync
> > starts for EST state, so I think it will hit the above case.
>
> You mean that we could end up ignoring a sync msg that we shouldn't ignore?
Yes, that was my worry but I don't see how the code
can fail, so it looks fine to me.
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
