From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: multicast routing and multiple interfaces with same IP Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090829.000154.263733862.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1b9338490908111626j55b49177q71b8a373b6e6381b@mail.gmail.com> <200908270253.19132.opurdila@ixiacom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mail4ilia@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: opurdila@ixiacom.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:52731 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751083AbZH2HBk (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Aug 2009 03:01:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200908270253.19132.opurdila@ixiacom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Octavian Purdila Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:53:18 +0300 > I don't have context on multicast routing, but this caught my attention: > >>@@ -61,11 +61,13 @@ >> unsigned int vifc_rate_limit; /* Rate limiter values (NI) */ >> struct in_addr vifc_lcl_addr; /* Our address */ >> struct in_addr vifc_rmt_addr; /* IPIP tunnel addr */ >>+ int ifindex; /* Local interface index */ >> }; >> > > Wouldn't this break userspace ABI? > > Perhaps you could use a union between vifc_lcl_addr and vifc_ifindex, they seem > to be exclusive. Indeed, this will need to be fixed up.