netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Prefix List against 2.5.73

To: krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx (Krishna Kumar)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Prefix List against 2.5.73
From: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:21:33 +0400 (MSD)
Cc: yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3F14492C.30708@xxxxxxxxxx> from "Krishna Kumar" at 15, 2003 11:34:20
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hello!

> the two sets of #defines (if_flags & ifa_flags since they intersect). I 
> propose
> changing the values of IFA_PERM/TENT/DEPRE/SECOND,

This is almost impossible, it is an old public API.

> which is the first bit of the field, but let me know if this is not 
> acceptable.

Select yourself: either IFA_IFFLAGS or translated flags in ifa_flags.
I prefer the second way just because it is too unpleasant to add
a new attribute for sake of two bits with no visible candidates
to use remaining ones.


> OK, I can change that to give a filter. Is it OK to add the filter to 
> rtm_flags ?
> I was thinking of adding RTM_F_PREFIX, and rt6_dump_route() can pass this 
> information
> to rt6_fill_node() which does filtering of routes based on whether this flag 
> is set
> or not. Did I understand you correctly here ?

Perfectly!


> I can remove the check completely and introduce a new flag RTF_PREFIX_RT to 
> distinguish
> between various route types.
> 
> Are these modifications OK ?

Yes, I would prefer this... Actually, it is mostly to leave possibility
to override this bit administratively. :-) If you insist this is totally
illegal and the rule must be hardwired, new flag is really redundant.

Alexey

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>