Le 31/05/2016 08:29, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
>  ❦ 30 mai 2016 18:27 CEST, Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dich...@6wind.com> :
> 
>>>> +
>>>> +  rtmsg_ifinfo(RTM_NEWLINK, peer, IFF_SLAVE, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> Maybe ~0U would be better than hijacking IFF_SLAVE?
>> IFF_SLAVE is wrong. It's a flag here, that will be put in the ifi_change 
>> field
>> not an attribute number.
> 
> There are some use of IFF_SLAVE (in bonding/bond_main.c). But, I'll
> update the patch nonetheless.
Sorry, I read it too quickly, IFF_SLAVE is a flag, not an attribute.
But this field indicates to the userland which flags has changed and this flag
does not change here ;-)

Reply via email to