Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 10:18:00 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> To: Dheeraj Kandula <dkandula@gmail.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ims_merge in in_mcast.c Message-ID: <5f8b19d0-f833-0566-2336-d75ce0881ffa@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BqNgxTMpE9_iT=ZoC78qMEeJPvZMKuG024k8rU2uaL3eKb1sQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA%2BqNgxTMpE9_iT=ZoC78qMEeJPvZMKuG024k8rU2uaL3eKb1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2020-10-12 19:11, Dheeraj Kandula wrote: > On line 987 and 991 shouldn't the index be 0 instead of 1. > > i.e. ims->ims_st[0].ex -= n; > and > ims->ims_st[0].in -= n; > > On a rollback, the entry at index 0 is incremented and the entry at index 1 > is decremented. > > On a non-rollback merge, the entry at index 0 is decremented and the entry > at index 1 is incremented. Hi, If you look at inm_commit() you see that [0] is overwritten by [1], so I believe the current code is correct. Same goes for both IPv4 and IPv6. Are you seeing an issue with multicast investigating this issue? --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5f8b19d0-f833-0566-2336-d75ce0881ffa>