netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.8.1 IPv6 Routing Problem

To: "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.8.1 IPv6 Routing Problem
From: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:54:15 +0100
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040922.120630.96674716.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409200806460.22679-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040920.152012.114156249.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040921195752.015e3d1d.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040922.120630.96674716.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Getting back to an ooooold thread...


On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:06:30PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
> In article <20040921195752.015e3d1d.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Tue, 21 Sep 2004 
> 19:57:52 -0700), "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:
> 
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:20:12 +0900 (JST)
> > YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > This behavior lives for years (AFAIK),
> > > and we haven't got so many reports 
> > > because people usually bring loopback device first.
> > > 
> > > I think the following message will help people, anyway.
> > 
> > If ipv6 has a dependency upon this, why doesn't it just
> > bring the device up itself at this moment if necessary?
> 
> Okay, I'll make a patch for this.

As far as I can see (please correct me) no such patch was included so
far, at least with 2.6.10-rc3 I still have the old behaviour.

Could you please include the proposed printk-warning-patch until the
issue gets resolved?

Thanks!

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>               http://www.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
Programming is like sex: One mistake and you have to support it your lifetime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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