On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 04:55:57PM -0700, David Miller wrote:

From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <redacted>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:14:26 +0200

quoted

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 03:21:51PM +0100, William Manley wrote:

quoted

@@ -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?

Thanks,

  Hannes