Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: track link status of ipv6 nexthops
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
Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: track link status of ipv6 nexthops
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
Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: track link status of ipv6 nexthops
From: Andy Gospodarek go...@cumulusnetworks.com Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 11:42:33 -0400 Add support to track current link status of ipv6 nexthops to match recent changes that added support for ipv4 nexthops. There was not a field already available that could track these and no space available in the existing rt6i_flags field, so this patch adds rt6i_nhflags to struct rt6_info. Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodarek go...@cumulusnetworks.com Signed-off-by: Dinesh Dutt dd...@cumulusnetworks.com This doesn't really make any sense to me. You can evaluate the state of the link at the time you look at the route at all of the places where it matters as far as I can tell. It's so expensive to walk the entire routing table every time a link goes up and down, so it's much better to take an evaluate as needed approach to implementing this. -- 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
Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: track link status of ipv6 nexthops
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:54:00AM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Andy Gospodarek go...@cumulusnetworks.com Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 11:42:33 -0400 Add support to track current link status of ipv6 nexthops to match recent changes that added support for ipv4 nexthops. There was not a field already available that could track these and no space available in the existing rt6i_flags field, so this patch adds rt6i_nhflags to struct rt6_info. Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodarek go...@cumulusnetworks.com Signed-off-by: Dinesh Dutt dd...@cumulusnetworks.com This doesn't really make any sense to me. You can evaluate the state of the link at the time you look at the route at all of the places where it matters as far as I can tell. It's so expensive to walk the entire routing table every time a link goes up and down, so it's much better to take an evaluate as needed approach to implementing this. 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. -- 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
