On 1/16/17 5:51 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern
> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 12:07:04 -0800
>
>> @@ -2143,6 +2143,26 @@ int ip6_del_rt(struct rt6_info *rt)
>> return __ip6_del_rt(rt, );
>> }
>>
>> +/* called with table lock held */
> ...
>> @@ -2176,10
On 1/16/17 6:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
> Is it clear now?
yes. time for a trip to the eye doctor
From: David Ahern
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:27:36 -0700
> On 1/16/17 5:51 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: David Ahern
>> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 12:07:04 -0800
>>
>>> @@ -2143,6 +2143,26 @@ int ip6_del_rt(struct rt6_info *rt)
>>> return
From: David Ahern
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 12:07:04 -0800
> @@ -2143,6 +2143,26 @@ int ip6_del_rt(struct rt6_info *rt)
> return __ip6_del_rt(rt, );
> }
>
> +/* called with table lock held */
...
> @@ -2176,10 +2196,9 @@ static int ip6_route_del(struct
On 1/16/17 8:48 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> Do we really need the flag ?. It seems like delete with just prefix should
> delete all the routes in a multipath
> route by default... (understand that you have it there to preserve existing
> behavior...for people who maybe relying on it. But this
On 1/15/17, 12:07 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> IPv4 allows multipath routes to be deleted using just the prefix and
> length. For example:
> $ ip ro ls vrf red
> unreachable default metric 8192
> 1.1.1.0/24
> nexthop via 10.100.1.254 dev eth1 weight 1
> nexthop via
IPv4 allows multipath routes to be deleted using just the prefix and
length. For example:
$ ip ro ls vrf red
unreachable default metric 8192
1.1.1.0/24
nexthop via 10.100.1.254 dev eth1 weight 1
nexthop via 10.11.200.2 dev eth11.200 weight 1
10.11.200.0/24 dev