| To: | yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (YOSHIFUJIHideaki/吉藤英明) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/4] Prefix List against 2.5.73 |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:20:30 +0400 (MSD) |
| Cc: | krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030715.155930.65250697.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "YOSHIFUJIHideaki/吉藤英明" at éÀÌ 15, 2003 03:59:30 |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > > > + IFA_IFFLAGS, > > > > What's about ifa_flags? There is some space there, and the things > > kept there now: TENTATIVE/DEPRECATED et al. are close relatives > > of O/M. > > Alexey, O/M are not flags for addresses, but for interfaces. > I believe we should not mix them up. OK. But tell me, please, what is the difference between new _address_ attribute IFA_IFFLAGS and already existing address attrbute ifa_flags? If you are going to enclose these per-interface flags to address information, they can be enclosed within existing attrubute. Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH][ATM] some misc sk-related fixups for atm, chas williams |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [RFC][bonding] Improve VLAN support on top of bonding, Shmulik Hen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/4] Prefix List against 2.5.73, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/4] Prefix List against 2.5.73, Krishna Kumar |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |