In article <20030627.144752.78715628.davem@redhat.com> (at Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:47:52 -0700 (PDT)), "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> says: > From: Krishna Kumar <krkumar@us.ibm.com> > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:45:19 -0700 > > rtnetlink_rcv_msg() calls dumpit() (via netlink_dump_start) only > for those messages for which the last two bits are binary '10'. So > I had to use these values. All the other *GET* macros use the same > semantics. > > Ok, please retransmit your two patches (2.4.x and 2.5.x) to me > under seperate cover. I don't keep a copy around of patches > I've decided not to apply. Well... 1. is it okay to have another hook for garbbig prefix list? Userspace application can get such information via - routing table - interface flag 2. is the "managed" flags etc, which is per interface variable, really NEWROUTE information? It is NOT L2 thing, but it is per-link information. I think it is NEWLINK thing. What I'm thinking is: - fix "ADDRCONF" flag in route information - manage / other flags via NEWLINK message (- No new interface to get prefix itself.) -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
