From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ipv6 addrconf: don't cleanup prefix route for IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:12:27 +0100 Message-ID: <20140110041227.GB1012@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <20140108200019.GK9007@order.stressinduktion.org> <1389227404-12586-1-git-send-email-thaller@redhat.com> <1389227404-12586-3-git-send-email-thaller@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jiri Pirko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, stephen@networkplumber.org, dcbw@redhat.com To: Thomas Haller Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:53072 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750893AbaAJEM2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:12:28 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1389227404-12586-3-git-send-email-thaller@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 01:30:04AM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > Refactor the deletion/update of prefix routes when removing an > address. Now also consider IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE and if there is an address > present with this flag, to not cleanup the route. Instead, assume > that userspace is taking care of this route. > > Also perform the same cleanup, when userspace changes an existing address > to add NOPREFIXROUTE (to an address that didn't have this flag). This is > done because when the address was added, a prefix route was created for it. > Since the user now wants to handle this route by himself, we cleanup this > route. > > This cleanup of the route is not totally robust. There is no guarantee, > that the route we are about to delete was really the one added by the > kernel. This behavior does not change by the patch, and in practice it > should work just fine. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Haller I think, this is now simpler than the original version. Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa Thanks!