From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ren Junyuan Subject: Question about the email about "[PATCH 2/3] IPV6: unify 3 similar code path in ndisc_recv_ns()" Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:04:40 +0800 Message-ID: <4732B508.60100@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@sunset.davemloft.net Return-path: Received: from [222.73.24.84] ([222.73.24.84]:63490 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751843AbXKHHG1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2007 02:06:27 -0500 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Dear David S. Miller : Happy to write to you. In the email <20040206.181006.79694138.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org > >, yoshfuji unified 3 similar code patch in ndisc_recv_ns(). I have a question about the "flags sent with NA in reply to this NS" . In the kernel 2.4.21, it is as follows: ndisc_send_na(dev, neigh, saddr, &msg->target, idev->cnf.forwarding, 1, 0, inc); in you patch it is as follows: ndisc_send_na(dev, neigh, saddr, &msg->target, idev->cnf.forwarding, 1, (ifp != NULL && inc), inc); Can you tell me why you modified the flag O(override)? Thanks a lot! -- Regards Ren Junyuan -------------------------------------------------- Ren Junyuan Development Dept.I Nanjing Fujitsu Nanda Software Tech. Co., Ltd.(FNST) 8/F., Civil Defense Building, No.189 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, China TEL: +86+25-86630566-851 COINS: 79955-851 FAX: +86+25-83317685 MAIL: renjy@cn.fujitsu.com