On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 12:22:17AM -0800, Jean-Mickael Guerin wrote: > > I'm resending the patch to fix the lifetime of IPv6 routes, you may want > to include it in your tree or let me know if there is something wrong or > incomplete.
Sorry, but I don't think this patch is needed. It is OK to add a route with the RTF_EXPIRES flag set and rtmsg_info == 0. It's simply a route that expires straight away. So there is no inconsistency in allowing this. In fact if anything we should find a way to export the RTF_EXPIRES flag in rt6_fill_node. As it is I don't see how the user can distinguish between a route that never expires versus a route that has just expired. Actually the rt6i_expires check in rt6_fill_node is wrong. It will cause a route that expires at jiffies == 0 (remember jiffies do wrap around) to show as a route that is either permanent or has just expired. It should be checking the RTF_EXPIRES flag instead. You're most welcome to fix this bug. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - 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
