| To: | Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: primary and secondary ip addresses |
| From: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 26 May 2005 20:21:46 +0200 |
| Cc: | David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050526181118.GK13114@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412171621200.15793@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1103550901.1050.292.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050412105442.GV7510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200505081531.16106.hasso@xxxxxxxxx> <20050526181118.GK13114@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
* Harald Welte <20050526181118.GK13114@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-26 20:11
> David, would you consider applying that patch to mainline? I think
> there was concensus on this solution, and it has now received some
> amount of testing by Hasso and me.
I agree, I've been running this patch for 3 weeks now without
any problems. Two comments below.
> @@ -281,6 +289,13 @@
> if (!in_dev->ifa_list)
> inetdev_destroy(in_dev);
> }
> +
> + if (promote && IN_DEV_PROMOTE_SECONDARIES(in_dev)) {
promote can only be !=NULL if promotion is enabled, no?
> + /* not sure if we should send a delete notify first? */
> + promote->ifa_flags &= ~IFA_F_SECONDARY;
> + rtmsg_ifa(RTM_NEWADDR, promote);
This can be improved, however sending a delete/add seems
inappropriate. I've patch prepared to add a change mask
which will give us the proper methods to do this right
but for now this is just fine I guess.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: primary and secondary ip addresses, Harald Welte |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH 2.6.12-rc5 0/9] tg3: Add ethtool selftest, Michael Chan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: primary and secondary ip addresses, Harald Welte |
| Next by Thread: | Re: primary and secondary ip addresses, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |