Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:05:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Flaschberger <if@xip.at> To: "Li, Qing" <qing.li@bluecoat.com> Cc: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com>, Ingo Flaschberger <if@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Routing enhancement - reduce routing table locking Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1104051805040.2152@filebunker.xip.at> In-Reply-To: <B143A8975061C446AD5E29742C531723025C17@PWSVL-EXCMBX-01.internal.cacheflow.com> References: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1104050303140.2152@filebunker.xip.at> <E0E87D94-3DE3-4884-8FBB-CC778486C364@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.00.1104051615160.2152@filebunker.xip.at>, <alpine.LRH.2.00.1104051731080.2152@filebunker.xip.at> <B143A8975061C446AD5E29742C531723025C17@PWSVL-EXCMBX-01.internal.cacheflow.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > I see, > > What you are saying is the "rtalloc()" call does not have an indicator whether it should be searching > for an interface route or not. > > In the case when RADIX_MPATH is enabled, in_lltable_rtcheck() needs to walk the ECMP route chain > to find an interface route. yes. Bye, Ingo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LRH.2.00.1104051805040.2152>