From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anders Franzen Subject: Re: [PATCH] arp_notify: unconditionally send gratuitous ARP for NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS. Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:26:39 +0100 Message-ID: <1300094799.30687.5.camel@seasc7941> References: <1297446256-23917-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> <20110214.174654.115944453.davem@davemloft.net> <1297761225.21980.3663.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20110215.105114.226760606.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net ([193.180.251.61]:53536 "EHLO mailgw10.se.ericsson.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755137Ab1CNJXs (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 05:23:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110215.105114.226760606.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Nice, so this is a generic way of getting out gratuitous arps. Can it be used by drivers (macvlan) on top of bonding. Bonding is sending the BOND_FAILOVER event that could be mapped to NOTIFY_PEERS in the higher level devices. And bonding is implementing its own grat arps functions, maybe it could be broken out to use the NOTIFY_PEERS instead. And what about IPv6, would it be ok to implement an unsolicited NA on the event? I will happily implement the above, if anyone thinks it's worth it? BR Anders On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 19:51 +0100, David Miller wrote: > From: Ian Campbell > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 09:13:45 +0000 > > > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 01:46 +0000, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Ian Campbell > >> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:44:16 +0000 > >> > >> > NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEER is an explicit request by the driver to send a link > >> > notification while NETDEV_UP/NETDEV_CHANGEADDR generate link > >> > notifications as a sort of side effect. > ... > > I nearly forgot -- the NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEER stuff was tagged for > > stable/longterm backport (it appeared in 2.6.32.19 or so). I think this > > change should likewise go back, what do you think? > > Sure, I've queued it up for -stable. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html