Hello, On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Inju Song wrote: > > Yep, then we should catch .upd_dest and to use last_weight. > > In fact, adding last_weight to IPVS core should be separate > > patch to apply before the MH patch. > > > > Ok. So should I send patch about adding last_weight to IPVS core > before appling the MH patch? Then I will. Yes, keep both patches in same patchset, patch 1 for last_weight and patch 2 for MH. You should send them by changing version until all issues are resolved. As result, it would be easier for Simon to apply them. > > locks are not needed, configuration is serialzed by > > using __ip_vs_mutex, the configuration methods run concurrently > > only with packet processing and we use RCU for the table. > > > > Ok. then I will use RCU for the mh_setup table. Nothing different from what was used in last MH version and what is in SH (ip_vs_sh_reassign): changing table entries with RCU primitives. 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
