From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:34:51 +0900 (JST)
In article <20030331.033524.114862210.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Mon, 31
Mar 2003 03:35:24 +0900 (JST)), YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
> In article <20030330163656.GA18645@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Sun, 30 Mar 2003
18:36:56 +0200), Simone Piunno <pioppo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:
> > - locking inside ipv6_add_addr() is simpler and more linear but
> > semantically wrong because you're unable to tell the user why his
> > "ip addr add" failed. E.g. you answer ENOBUFS instead of EEXIST.
> We don't want to create duplicate address in any case.
> ipv6_add_addr() IS right place.
> And, we can return error code by using IS_ERR() etc.
> I'll fix this.
Here's the revised patch.
Applied to both 2.4.x and 2.5.x.
BTW, 2.4.x patch failed in two spots, one was author comment
which I easily fixed, second was in privacy code which I did not
apply yet to 2.4.x (I fixed this too, don't worry).
I do not want to put privacy code into 2.4.x until crypto is there.
I plan to put crypto lib into 2.4.22-pre1.