Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:06:57 +0100 | From | Chang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: sctp: bug fixing when sctp path recovers |
| |
On 11/13/2013 09:44 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 11/13/2013 03:54 AM, 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 > > Please also for the log, elaborate a bit more, explaining what currently > happens, and what the effects of this bug are, so that later when people > are looking through the Git log they can easily get what problem you are > trying to fix; and if possible, add: > > Fixes: <12 digits SHA1> ("<commit title>") > Yeah, sure, I'll elaborate that more specifically. I assume the 12-digit SHA1 is the revision number. But may I ask where and how shall I add the tag "Fixes" tag? The revision number is generated after "git commit", how can I know that in advance?
Best Regards!
>>>> 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. >>> >>>> } >>>> >>>> + 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 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|  |