Hello Julian
>From what I can see there is nothing in the rs_table except for NAT:ed dest, or ?
so the code fragment below will not work.
I.e. my double list_for_each that goes throug the service table must be there...
or do we need both?
[snip]
>
>- For ip_vs_dst_event: I prefer to put everything in this
>function, the ip_vs_svc_reset is not needed (name is not
>good too). For example:
>
> struct ip_vs_dest *dest;
> unsigned int hash;
>
> mutex_lock(&__ip_vs_mutex);
> /* No need to use rs_lock, the mutex protects the list */
> for (hash = 0; hash < IP_VS_RTAB_SIZE; hash++) {
> list_for_each_entry(dest, &ipvs->rs_table[hash], d_list) {
> __ip_vs_dev_reset(dest, dev);
> }
> }
>
> /* The mutex protects the trash list */
> list_for_each_entry(dest, &ipvs->dest_trash, n_list) {
> __ip_vs_dev_reset(dest, dev);
> }
>
> mutex_unlock(&__ip_vs_mutex);
>
> No need to use __ip_vs_svc_lock or rs_lock because we
>do not change the lists, __ip_vs_dev_reset has the needed
>dst_cache locking (dst_lock). I assume we can safely use our
>__ip_vs_mutex from netdevice notifier.
Regards
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
