On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:32:26PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > 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, Dave. Will do. -- 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
