From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [net-next] ipv6: Enable netlink notification for tentative addresses. Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:24:23 -0700 Message-ID: <4C773DF7.8050508@candelatech.com> References: <4C76C73F.4080206@hp.com> <20100826.131801.246519955.davem@davemloft.net> <4C76DA62.8040109@candelatech.com> <20100826.142755.15249596.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: brian.haley@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:38066 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750834Ab0H0EY1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:24:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100826.142755.15249596.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/26/2010 02:27 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Greear > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:19:30 -0700 > >> In our case, we enable IPv6 in user-space, and then we want to get >> some immediate indication that indeed the process is working as >> expected. > > When DAD completes, you'll get a similar indication. > >> In other cases, we want to remove all IPv6 addresses, so if we have >> not even been notified that the IP exists, then we cannot know how >> to delete it. > > You can add a netlink message to accomplish that. This has been > asked for in other contexts as well. > >> We've been running this patch for several years, and it has not >> caused any obvious problems with other tools, so I think it's safe >> enough. > > And your level of exposure compared to upstream is...? :-) > > Anyways, even if it's implemented in an error free way it's still > not necessary the best way to go about this. Ok, lets not worry about this patch any more then. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com