From: Andy Gospodarek <go...@cumulusnetworks.com> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:46:52 -0400
> I went this way as the idea of storing this info in a flags structure > for 2 reasons: > > - This idea or marking on link status changes and checking for that mark > during forwarding was done what was suggested by Alex et al for the > ipv4 code and I wanted to keep the overall design similar. > > - New flags will likely be needed when switchdev support is added for > ipv6 routes so going ahead and mirroring the RTNH_F* flags in the the > ipv6 code seemed reasonable. > > I would actually be fine with what you proposed (it is closer to the > first implementation), so if my justification above does not change your > mind, let me know and I'll post a v2 that does not add rt6i_nhflags and > simply checks netif_carrier_ok() rather than RTNH_F_LINKDOWN. Ok fair enough, if we'll need more flags later then so be it. Andy, please resubmit this series, I'll apply it. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
