On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:03:28AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > 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. Thanks, it sounds like we should study things more carefully before making any changes. > > > 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 netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
