[PATCH 3/4] Add IPv6 address checkpoint handler

Dan Smith danms at us.ibm.com
Mon Apr 12 10:39:28 PDT 2010


SH> How could that be defined?  :)

Hmm, I must have typo'd that after I did all my config testing because
otherwise I wouldn't have been able to test checkpointing ipv6 stuff.

SH> Again, I'd prefer ckpt_err here.

SH> Note that in my last email that really was a q - if you're under
SH> spinlock here, then you can't use ckpt_err().

Right, the point of this loop was to iterate the list quickly while
holding the device lock, so we could write out the results after we
release it.

I think these two cases (and the ipv4 case) are pretty unlikely to be
a problem as they would only be triggered if you actually have
active multicast or anycast sessions configured.  This will not
trigger for the default addresses.

I don't think that dropping the lock to do ckpt_err() would be very
pretty, nor would introducing a result string for an error message.
This is plumbed a couple levels deep.

Is there some way you see this being handled better?

Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: danms at us.ibm.com

More information about the Containers mailing list