Ok, thanks for the reminder Hasso. so essentially at the moment the pid that will show up (if quagga added the v6 route) will be that of quagga, correct? Same with v4 iirc? If yes, then isnt it logical that if ifconfig added an ip address it should naturally be ifconfig's pid that shows up (for consistency)? Note we can add ip addresses via netlink with newer kernels and the apps/user-space pid will show up[1].
cheers, jamal [1] I understand the point put forward by Alexey that: had he called that field "port" instead of "pid" when he created netlink, things would have had different semantics - I am just talking about consistency here. On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 22:08 +0200, Hasso Tepper wrote: > Hasso Tepper wrote: > > No, that was different issue and isn't related with issue Alexey > > poiting to. The issue I complained and you fixed it, Jamal, was that > > IPv6 related netlink messages had always pid 0 even if they were issued > > by application. > > It was unclear, so I have to correct myself - "... by application via > netlink socket." That was the change: > http://www.kernel.org/hg/linux-2.6/?cmd=changeset;node=061262a38daa1717e8343846bc9a8fd5712bd07a > > > What Alexey pointing to is the change you did earlier - set pid in the > > messages not related to netlink sockets - ie. changes initiated by user > > using ioctls for example. > > That was the change Alexey is talking about: > http://www.kernel.org/hg/linux-2.6/?cmd=changeset;node=bd982ca8d4365a3c34e66d8d1be1df04466a19e8 > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
