From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: [net v3] veth: advertise peer link once both links are tied together Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 11:17:20 +0200 Message-ID: <574D56A0.3090606@6wind.com> References: <574C6095.9050804@6wind.com> <1464623917-11536-1-git-send-email-vincent@bernat.im> <87bn3n358j.fsf@zoro.exoscale.ch> <574C69DE.3050305@6wind.com> Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "David S. Miller" , Vijay Pandurangan , Paolo Abeni , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Vincent Bernat Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:35544 "EHLO mail-wm0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756751AbcEaJRX (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2016 05:17:23 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id a136so120752376wme.0 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 02:17:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 31/05/2016 08:29, Vincent Bernat a =C3=A9crit : > =E2=9D=A6 30 mai 2016 18:27 CEST, Nicolas Dichtel : >=20 >>>> + >>>> + rtmsg_ifinfo(RTM_NEWLINK, peer, IFF_SLAVE, GFP_KERNEL); >>> >>> Maybe ~0U would be better than hijacking IFF_SLAVE? >> IFF_SLAVE is wrong. It's a flag here, that will be put in the ifi_ch= ange field >> not an attribute number. >=20 > There are some use of IFF_SLAVE (in bonding/bond_main.c). But, I'll > update the patch nonetheless. Sorry, I read it too quickly, IFF_SLAVE is a flag, not an attribute. But this field indicates to the userland which flags has changed and th= is flag does not change here ;-)