From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] [NET]: Fix deletion of local addresses only varying in prefix length Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:11:20 +0100 Message-ID: <42290738.6050605@trash.net> References: <20050304012003.GA31837@postel.suug.ch> <20050304131419.GE31837@postel.suug.ch> <20050304233212.GA27421@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050305002910.GJ31837@postel.suug.ch> <42290172.7020403@trash.net> <20050305010319.GB27804@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Graf , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com To: Herbert Xu In-Reply-To: <20050305010319.GB27804@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Herbert Xu wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:46:42AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>I think that would be ok. Unrelated to this: for IFA_ADDRESS we don't >>do an exact match, perhaps we should also do this for IFA_LOCAL for >>consistency. > > > You mean that we do do an exact match for IFA_ADDRESS? No, I meant that IFA_ADDRESS matches on exact prefixlen, but uses inet_ifa_match() for comparing the addresses. In any case we should keep the behaviour that no given prefix is a wildcard, but if a prefix is given we could do something similar as for IFA_ADDRESS. Regards Patrick