From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mitsuru Chinen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ensure IF_READY is unset when link is not ready Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:01:07 +0900 Message-ID: <20070308110107.6a010895.mitch@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20070305175924.2f46446c.mitch@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070307.155438.27784474.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org To: David Miller , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Return-path: Received: from ausmtp04.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.152]:64907 "EHLO ausmtp04.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750700AbXCHCBc (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:01:32 -0500 Received: from sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (d23rh904.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.202]) by ausmtp04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l282HxcP160512 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:17:59 +1100 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.242]) by sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l2824oNA015694 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:04:51 +1100 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l2821JT7014423 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:01:20 +1100 In-Reply-To: <20070307.155438.27784474.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:54:38 -0800 (PST) David Miller wrote: > From: Herbert Xu > Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:47:56 +1100 > > > Mitsuru Chinen wrote: > > > > > > On linux-2.6.21-rc2 or later, IPv6 link-local address is not assigned to > > > some kind of interfaces during system start-up. (I found this issue > > > occures with e100, e1000 and tg3.) > > > > Here is an alternative fix. > > > > [IPV6]: Do not set IF_READY if device is down > > > > Now that we add the IPv6 device at registration time we don't need > > to set IF_READY in ipv6_add_dev anymore because we will always get > > a NETDEV_UP event later on should the device ever become ready. > > > > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu > > Indeed, this looks like it will do the right thing. > > And if you look into the history of the code in this area > I think you'll find that this snippet being removed existed > exactly because inet6_dev creation happened long after the > device was registered. I understand. Thanks. And I thank Herbert to provide suitable fix. Best Regards, ---- Mitsuru Chinen