Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] net: igmp: Allow user-space configuration of igmp unsolicited report interval

From: William Manley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:47:19 +0100

On 31/07/13 07:34, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 04:55:57PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa<[email-masked]>
>> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:14:26 +0200
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 03:21:51PM +0100, William Manley wrote:
>>>> @@ -2099,6 +2103,10 @@ static struct devinet_sysctl_table {
>>>>   		DEVINET_SYSCTL_FLUSHING_ENTRY(NOPOLICY, "disable_policy"),
>>>>   		DEVINET_SYSCTL_FLUSHING_ENTRY(FORCE_IGMP_VERSION,
>>>>   					      "force_igmp_version"),
>>>> +		DEVINET_SYSCTL_FLUSHING_ENTRY(IGMPV2_UNSOLICITED_REPORT_INTERVAL,
>>>> +					      "igmpv2_unsolicited_report_interval"),
>>>> +		DEVINET_SYSCTL_FLUSHING_ENTRY(IGMPV3_UNSOLICITED_REPORT_INTERVAL,
>>>> +					      "igmpv3_unsolicited_report_interval"),
>>>>   		DEVINET_SYSCTL_FLUSHING_ENTRY(PROMOTE_SECONDARIES,
>>>>   					      "promote_secondaries"),
>>>>   		DEVINET_SYSCTL_FLUSHING_ENTRY(ROUTE_LOCALNET,
>>>
>>> Why did you use DEVINET_SYSCTL_FLUSHING_ENTRY here? Wouldn't
>>> DEVINET_SYSCTL_RW_ENTRY be a better choice?
>>
>> Agreed, there is no reason to flush the routing cache just because
>> the igmp unsolicited report interval changed.
>
> William, could you convert force_igmp_version to DEVINET_SYSCTL_RW_ENTRY as
> well when you send a new patch?

Will do.  I have to confess I only made it flushing because I was 
copying force_igmp_version without understanding.

Will take a couple of days as I have a bunch of other stuff on ATM.

Thanks

Will