Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:22:40 -0500 | From | Vlad Yasevich <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: sctp: bug fixing when sctp path recovers |
| |
On 11/12/2013 09:54 PM, Chang wrote: > > On 11/13/2013 03:37 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote: >> On 11/12/2013 08:34 PM, Chang Xiangzhong wrote: >>> Look for the __two__ most recently used path/transport and set to >>> active_path >>> and retran_path respectively >>> >>> Signed-off-by: changxiangzhong@gmail.com >>> --- >>> net/sctp/associola.c | 4 ++++ >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/sctp/associola.c b/net/sctp/associola.c >>> index ab67efc..070011a 100644 >>> --- a/net/sctp/associola.c >>> +++ b/net/sctp/associola.c >>> @@ -913,11 +913,15 @@ void sctp_assoc_control_transport(struct >>> sctp_association *asoc, >>> if (!first || t->last_time_heard > first->last_time_heard) { >>> second = first; >>> first = t; >>> + continue; >>> } >>> if (!second || t->last_time_heard > second->last_time_heard) >>> second = t; >> >> You might as well remove this bit and then you don't need a continue. > I don't think we could remove this bit. My understanding of these > algorithms are to find the 1st recently used path and the 2nd, assigning > to active_path and retran_path respectively. If we remove the > looking-for-second block, how are we suppose to find the 2nd? > I think we can remove the continue and use else-if in the > 2nd-assignment-block.
Yes, you are right. An if...else block is what we need here.
-vlad
>> >>> } >>> >>> + if (!second) >>> + second = first; >>> + >> >> This needs to move down 1 more block. Set the second transport after we >> check to see if the primary is back up and we need to go back to using >> it. >> >> -vlad >> > I agree with this change >>> /* RFC 2960 6.4 Multi-Homed SCTP Endpoints >>> * >>> * By default, an endpoint should always transmit to the >>> >> >
|  |