From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Add IPv6 address checkpoint handler Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:46:17 -0700 Message-ID: <87vdbs1oty.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> References: <1270748932-26745-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1270748932-26745-4-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <4BC76A65.7060909@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BC76A65.7060909-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org> (Brian Haley's message of "Thu\, 15 Apr 2010 15\:35\:01 -0400") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Brian Haley Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org BH> Is using IFA_F_PERMANENT correct here? Should you save the flags BH> from the address when checkpointing? Permanent means it was added BH> by the user, not by the kernel, so you could be changing things BH> slightly. Does the kernel create global scope addresses? Maybe it does in some more advanced IPv6 environments, but it seemed like excluding global scope addresses in checkpoint meant that we only saved (and thus restore) the permanent ones anyway. I guess it's a better idea to just save the flags anyhow now that I have a way to restore them. -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org